Slashdot Mirror


Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion

woodhouse writes "According to BBC News, a company in the UK have just tested a fully amphibious car on the Thames river. It can travel at up to 100 miles an hour on land, and its wheels fold up to allow it to speed across water at 30mph, propelled by a jet. The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion."

560 comments

  1. It's a convertible? by mmoncur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why a convertible? Riding it is going to be like one of those amusement park rides that gets everyone wet.

    > "The Thames is a perfect location to make use
    > of this vehicle as it has no speed limit and
    > is greatly under-utilised."

    Those silly Brits. We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.

    --

    It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
    1. Re:It's a convertible? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure it is. None of the pictures indicate that it actually ahs a roof...

    2. Re:It's a convertible? by RussGarrett · · Score: 4, Informative

      I dunno why they say that - the Thames speed limit is 8 knots above Wandsworth, and even below there they can stop you if they think you're affecting other craft.

    3. Re:It's a convertible? by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      > "The Thames is a perfect location to make use
      > of this vehicle as it has no speed limit and
      > is greatly under-utilised."

      Those silly Brits. We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.


      The BBC is just reporting what the guy selling the car said; it doesn't mean that it is true; it certainly isn't in general. He is a car salesman, after all. Of course, there are speed limits on the Thames.

    4. Re:It's a convertible? by Daz3d · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw this on TV yesterday a few times, on the car there is a plastic shield on both sides, just behind the mirrors (to stop splashes I guess) and the guy looked pretty dry to me. Shame it looks like a Mazda MX-5 though.

    5. Re:It's a convertible? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      There was an amphibious car called Amphicar back in the 60's and they were convertibles (every one i ever saw anyway). They still show up at the car shows once in a while.

    6. Re:It's a convertible? by jacquesm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Just when the Thames is getting back to a more or less clean state. Yes! let's all jump into boats to avoid the congestion, congest the waterways and pollute them to the point where the only thing that wants to live there are 6 legged frogs...


      Suggesting this could relieve congestion is just stupid.

    7. Re:It's a convertible? by CptLogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I used to own a speedboat and I checked the speed limits on the Thames with the PLA (Port of London Authority) and Environment Agency.

      Now it works like this:

      Upstream of Teddington Lock, the river is considered non-tidal and is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and has an 8 knot speed limit.

      Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.

      Yes, I was surprised.

      So, yes, I could drive this car to my nearest public slipway (In Woolwich), drive it into the river and bash the waves at 30mph, drive out at Richmond and drive the rest of the way to work.

      Fantastic!

    8. Re:It's a convertible? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      !!

      The MX-5 is one of the finest road cars available to buy today! What would you rather it looked like, a Ssangyong Musso?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:It's a convertible? by melevitt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why a convertible? Riding it is going to be like one of those amusement park rides that gets everyone wet.
      Right... 'Cause all normal power boats have enclosed tops...
    10. Re:It's a convertible? by the_duke_of_hazzard · · Score: 1

      Easing congestion? No speed limits? Hehe I can't wait to see all those rich folk smash each other up on the river. Anyone want to club together to buy Ricahrd Branson one?

    11. Re:It's a convertible? by chain_from_hell · · Score: 1

      And obviously there are gonna be huge traffic jams on the on and of ramps. There will only be a few ramps, so when the river gets more populated with this 'cars' they will cause major traffic jams, but on the water. The same goes for the flying cars. Imagine the hurds of cars hoovering above the city searching for a parking spot...

    12. Re:It's a convertible? by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Fantastic! ...for six months and then you'll be queueing to get on the slipway.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    13. Re:It's a convertible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, because he'll have been the only one to pay $240,000 for the privelege to cut his commute without using a segway.

    14. Re:It's a convertible? by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Just when the Thames is getting back to a more or less clean state ... where the only thing that wants to live there are 6 legged frogs.

      As a Londoner, I resemble that remark!

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    15. Re:It's a convertible? by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is still faster then some of British motorways in peak hours. And no speed cameras. Yet.

      Actually, someone (I think MG) 30 years ago did something similar and people even used it to cross the Channel. You can see it in some of the early Grzhimek movies about Serengetty. It got banned on safety ground at the end.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    16. Re:It's a convertible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't worry, at ~$250,000US I don't think there will be a problem with them polluting the waterways.

    17. Re:It's a convertible? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      It is a convertible so that people can get into the car.

      It has no doors, because water might leak into the car if it had a door.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    18. Re:It's a convertible? by lobsterGun · · Score: 1, Funny

      Save the 6 legged frog! Pollute the Thames!

    19. Re:It's a convertible? by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't impugn the six-legged frogs, you insensitive...

      Oh, never mind.

      BTW, I don't mean that you are six-legged, StrawberryFrog. Um, unless of course you are six-legged, which I am just fine with. Really.

    20. Re:It's a convertible? by awol · · Score: 1

      Actually the guy said it was a good way to beat "the congestion charge", he was being ever so slightly tonguw in cheek.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    21. Re:It's a convertible? by Escoutaire · · Score: 1

      > "The Thames is a perfect location to make use
      > of this vehicle as it has no speed limit and
      > is greatly under-utilised."

      I think there is a speed limit on the Thames, or at least on certain areas of it. It's set at 5 knots (about 8mph) IIRC. Check with the Port of London Authority, PLA.

      I had a look there, but didn't have time to go through it all. Someone please correct this if I am wrong.

      Escoutaire

      --
      When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
    22. Re:It's a convertible? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      they can stop you if they think you're affecting other craft

      Only if they have an amphibious coast guard boat that can chase you onto land...

    23. Re:It's a convertible? by Eight+01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would this be practical in London? I live in New York, and honestly I can't think of any situation in which taking to the river would be faster than driving. The main problem in NY is that there are no access points to the rivers. It is basically a 5-10 foot drop off a wall anywhere within 15 miles of downtown.

      So to get to the airport I'd be looking at driving 15 miles out of my way in traffic to get to someplace to put in, then another 15 miles on the water, then another search for a place to get out.

      The normal roads are bad, but not THAT bad.

    24. Re:It's a convertible? by SenorMooCow · · Score: 1

      The same goes for the flying cars. Imagine the hurds of cars hoovering above the city searching for a parking spot...

      Well hovering above looking for a spot sure beats the asshole who just stops in the middle of a one lane road and wait because he just saw someone remotely unlock thier car.

      --
      I run a Debian/Kernel/Knoppix Mirror: (http|ftp|rsync)://debian.ams.sunysb.edu/
      apt-get @ > 5MBps == teh win!
    25. Re:It's a convertible? by Malc · · Score: 1

      At a 150G a car, how many people do you think will buy one? That's Aston Martin price range, and look how many of those you see on the roads. I doubt congestion will be an issue.

    26. Re:It's a convertible? by jdray · · Score: 1

      I see the same problem here in Portland (Oregon). There aren't 5-10 foot drops from walls, but there aren't a lot of boat ramps downtown, either. I can think of two on the South end of town and two on the North end for the Willamette, but that's about it. The Willamette divides the city, and the Columbia creates a northern border.

      Of course, they don't call Portland "Bridgetown" for nothing. It's a breeze to cross the river, even at rush hour. The bottlenecks are elsewhere. I hear different about NYC, but I've never been there.

      Still, one of these cars would be super cool to have. I wonder if you'd have to wear a life vest to drive it? I can just see Nordstrom carrying stylish lifejackets that go with your summerweight blazer...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    27. Re:It's a convertible? by Daemonic · · Score: 1
      Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.
      Yes, it's the PLA, but no - there's still a 8 knot speed limit between there and Wandsworth.
    28. Re:It's a convertible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it starts to sink would you really want to try and fight your way out of something with a roof?

    29. Re:It's a convertible? by The+Notorious+ASP · · Score: 1

      According to CNN the car has no doors so it won't leak, therefore you gotta hop in and out just like with a boat. Either gotta be convertible or do it dukes of hazzard style.

      Pretty freakin' cool if you asked me.. I'd want to cruise with the top down anyway :)

    30. Re:It's a convertible? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because most speedboats have roofs

      What ARE you talking about?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    31. Re:It's a convertible? by Fembot · · Score: 1

      Aren't there charges for using a slipway anyway?

    32. Re:It's a convertible? by El · · Score: 1

      We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.
      Really? And yet they still manage to sell thousands of hydroplanes and cigarette boats that will top 100mph here... amazing!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    33. Re:It's a convertible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its big news here in New Zealander as the car was created by a NZ millionare. Normal boating rules apply in NZ - no speed limit outside of special zones such as swimming areas.

      30 knots may not sound like a lot, but when you are in a jet boat skimming down a narrow river it feels more than enough...

    34. Re:It's a convertible? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Those silly Brits. We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.
      You silly yank. The Thames is not in the US.
      Yet.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Cool Car by Bruha · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can someone Loan me the $295,000 dollars to buy it?

    Also I cant wait for one to be stolen in Los Angeles and the resulting police chase. I'd love to see the looks on the cops faces when it drives into one of the aquaducts and gets away from the cars at least. I'm sure the helicopter pioliot will be laughing at least.

    1. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to rain on your parade, but I've never seen the LA "aquaducts" even look moist. Much less with standing water.

    2. Re:Cool Car by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      It would be even cooler if this thing was submergable, imagine what an LAPD helo would look like patrolling the city with sonar bouys and acoustic torpedos in place.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Cool Car by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 5, Funny
      Not to rain on your parade, but I've never seen the LA "aquaducts" even look moist. Much less with standing water.

      Of course not. They're for Hollywood car chase scenes, not for carrying water. Every chase through LA must include one or more dips into the aquaducts... it's part of their contract.

    4. Re:Cool Car by bicho · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      Soon we'd be seeing Kit chaising them!

      --

      errera hunamum ets
    5. Re:Cool Car by torpor · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      The parent poster must never have seen *rain* in LA either, then. I lived there for 15 years, and could count on the ducts running through Hollywood flowing brown water every winter. I've seen water in those ducts ever year.

      Parent-poster must also never have seen any of the annual news reports about 'homeless people' being swept away during the start of winter, from their aquaduct-villages ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:Cool Car by The+Dobber · · Score: 0, Troll


      Not to be pedantic but it is "aqueduct".

      And I'm not sure if the paving of the LA River banks qualifies. But I digress from todays true mission, Illitate Reformation.

    7. Re:Cool Car by MrBlint · · Score: 0

      Make it capable of space flight as well and we will finally have caught up with Gerry Anderson's vision of a Super-Car ("It travels on land or under the sea ... It's the marvel of the age")

      --
      That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
    8. Re:Cool Car by MrBlint · · Score: 0

      Here's a link" for other sad old geeks like me.

      --
      That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
    9. Re:Cool Car by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      But I digress from todays true mission, Illitate Reformation.

      Nice. I hope tomorrow's mission is Punctuaion Reformation or maybe Spellng Reformation. I also hope you get all the illitates reformed today.
      Good luck!

    10. Re:Cool Car by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else ever think that Super-Car was just a TINY BIT too big to be a car? Super-Lorry, more like.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:Cool Car by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      Soon we'd be seeing Kit chaising them!
      Don't you mean Knight Boat?
    12. Re:Cool Car by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the bite.............

      Nice cover-up attempt.

    13. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just head for Cuba. And make certain you have a full tank of gas.

    14. Re:Cool Car by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      Every car chase goes through the aquaducts in L.A. and they don't even need amphibious equipment!

    15. Re:Cool Car by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      wow, the price has gone from $335,000 on a news program i watched this morning, to $325,000 fifteen minutes later on the same program, to $295,000 here no slashdot. is the pound tanking again?

    16. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it! When called on for being an idiot, just say you were trolling! Saves face in any situation.

    17. Re:Cool Car by Dan+Morenus · · Score: 1

      The original article only seemed to have a still photo of the car. For a preview of said chase, go to Reuters News and click on the link in the upper right for Reuters Television. One of their featured video clips (as of this writing) is of the car driving on the road, and into, around on, and out of a body of water (presumably the Thames).

      --
      -- Conserve binary trees; recycle your email. --
    18. Re:Cool Car by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      Can someone Loan me the $295,000 dollars to buy it?

      Geez, I'll just buy a Bayliner cruiser and a Corvette for each end and pocket the other $175,000, thanks.

    19. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'll give ya the Todays, but the Illitate was intentional.

    20. Re:Cool Car by armb · · Score: 1

      > Can someone Loan me the $295,000 dollars to buy it?

      You might want to look at http://www.timdutton.com/

      Much cheaper, and they have years of experience.

      Downside - being a displacement boat, not planing, it's a lot slower (6mph, not 30). (And being based on a small Suzuki Jeep, it's slower on land too, but if the roads are congested you are going to be slow anyway).

      Ok, it doesn't look as cool, but it has a price list to buy one now, not a projected price to buy one if they ever go into production. (And their website doesn't just tell me I need to download a new version of Flash.)

      --
      rant
    21. Re:Cool Car by Nept · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're probably thinking of the drainage basins to capture runoff and protect areas of the city against flash flooding. I've seen them full to the top a few times when we've had heavy rains - it's not usual, but it's always entertaining as you always get some clowns who decide to go rafting down them.
      But the LA aquaducts, outside the city, are always full of water. They just pipe water in from the mountains, etc.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    22. Re:Cool Car by IncredibleCrisis · · Score: 1

      The last one I saw to end up in the ocean was a guy who drove his car to Marina Del Rey at night then jumped off a dock (on foot, no, not Homer to Garbage Island). With the copter's "night sun" on, the cops waited for less than five minutes for him to realize the water was too cold and swim back the few yards he went out. For that single moment at least, LA was one, and we did all get along--to laugh together.

    23. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Honda's self-parking car more.

      http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/automotive/24526 85 /detail.html

    24. Re:Cool Car by steve's+nose+is+blee · · Score: 1
      They Just pipe water in from the Mountains
      Hate to be anal about this one...they pump water in from Northern California Resivoirs, we get to send LA our water because too many SoCalites are breeding down there.
    25. Re:Cool Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people, make real links. It saves everyone from having to fix up slashdot's reformatting.

    26. Re:Cool Car by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Of course not. They're for Hollywood car chase scenes, not for carrying water. Every chase through LA must include one or more dips into the aquaducts... it's part of their contract.

      I think there is even one movie where the Shuttle lands in the LA aquaducts. I think it was "Core", but not sure. The news said there was pressure to remove that scene after the Shuttle accident.

  3. Hmm by rmohr02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The concept for this car is pretty cool, but there's just something I like about riding in a converted WWII amphibious assault vehicle. They're for different markets, but I'd prefer the "Ducks" to this car.

    1. Re:Hmm by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      But this car is fast on the water and fast on the road.

    2. Re:Hmm by fuckfuck101 · · Score: 0

      yes many say the DUKs quite possibly won it on Dday for us, because of their ability to deliver supplies from ships that couldn't get further to the coast and bring them right up to the beach, this worked for amunitions, food, and troops themselves.

      so if that one won D day, surely this one would be good for something.

      --
      Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
    3. Re:Hmm by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1

      Rather one of those than a Sherman DD - at least it won't tip over at the slightest bit of wind!

    4. Re:Hmm by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Just like most Americans: Bigger is better.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently your mom thinks this too, judging by the size of her fat ass.

    6. Re:Hmm by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Surely this Cuban DIY amphibious creation has a much higher geek factor? ;-)

    7. Re:Hmm by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      There used to be (still is?) an outfit in the Wisconsin Dells that does tours like that. One of these would definately be cool for the neighborhood car pool:)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Hmm by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Actually, I saw a show a little while back claiming that it wasn't the wind that caused the tanks to sink, it was the current and inept crew (standard tank crew, with no sea experience). As the DDs were swept eastward, they kept themselves pointed towards preset landmarks, usually church spires, to insure they hit the right landing zone. As they moved farther and farther from those landmarks laterally, the tanks were no longer headed straight in to shore, but rather at a large angle. The skirts were well protected from waves hitting the backs of the tanks, but very poorly protected from waves hitting the sides, and so beyond a certain angle, the skirts collapsed and the tanks sank.

      Of course, none of that wouldn't have been a problem if the order to release tanks closer into shore (because of the weather) had been obeyed by more than one ship.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    9. Re:Hmm by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Just like most non-Americans: Thinking that most Americans think bigger is better...

      Can we leave the stupid stereotypes at the door, please?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Hmm by tengwar · · Score: 1

      Not so sure they are for different markets - there's a bright yellow DUKW with seating in the back that does tours in central London.

    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could take a few employees to work in that thing. It kind of brings a new meaning to the term "car pool" doesn't it?

    12. Re:Hmm by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      The "Wisconsin Ducks" are indeed still around, with quite a large fleet of the machines...and there are four or five other businesses around the country doing the same thing on a smaller scale.

      The DUKW wouldn't make much of a personal vehicle, though: it's basically a 6x6 GM truck with 15 forward speeds and a boat hull, and you have to load it up with 30-odd tourists to make it economically feasible.

      There was a small machine built in Germany in the Sixties called the Amphicar, that didn't sell very well. It was an unimpressive car, and a worse boat.

      rj

    13. Re:Hmm by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Seen pictures of the amphicars afloat. With two modest sized passengers, it has like 3-4 inches of freeboard:)

      As far as an economically unfeasible vehicle... It's America. What's 5 mpg if it means you look cool on the highways! (and waterways:) I'd be more apt to use it as a small family camper.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  4. pollution ? by mirko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion.

    Well, it is, if you can prove it won't pollute the waters.
    BTW, I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in France, boats over a given cylinder volume require their pilot to hold a license.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:pollution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in France, boats over a given cylinder volume require their pilot to hold a license.

      In the US, it's boats over a given tonnage-100 tons, which I'm reasonably sure is larger than the car. Unless perhaps they've made if from depleted uranium.

    2. Re:pollution ? by azaroth42 · · Score: 3, Funny


      More importantly, do you avoid the 5 pound congestion road tax in London when you're driving on the Thames?

      --Azaroth

    3. Re:pollution ? by larien · · Score: 1

      Won't pollute the waters? Have you seen the Thames? I doubt it could get much more polluted....

    4. Re:pollution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Aquada.. that must be the amphibious Al-Qaida movement I presume.

      No, I did not read the headline or the article, you insensitive clod.

    5. Re:pollution ? by KDan · · Score: 5, Informative

      It could. Back before they built the sewers in the 1850s or so, the sewage from two and a half million people went into the thames - which is a tidal river at that point. So you have 2.5mil ppl's crap going up and down the thames with the tide. They got outbreaks of cholera from that because the water companies just pumped that water and distributed that to people - drinking beer exclusively was a good plan in those days.

      They finally decided to fund the sewers (a gigantic project, and very well done since the original sewers are still in use today) when the thames stank so bad that the MP's couldn't even get into the river-facing rooms of the house of parliament without choking from the awful stench (apparently comparable to the smell of a rotting body).

      I'd say that was worse than now.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    6. Re:pollution ? by mirko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have not seen the Thames, except in "A Fish Called Wanda" (and the few views were taken quite far from it), but I remember their "Smog" : while landing in London on a lovely summer day, the plane flew through something dark, opaque, a few meters thick, then landed in Heathrow.

      The sky had become beige/gray and the temperature had risen.

      That's why I am somehow concerned by the pollution level in London, I have to say it is much worse than in Paris and only a decent education could help fixing it : teach the people to ride their bicycles to work instead of mass-farting in the sub, forbid the cars in the Zentrum.

      But just make them understand a daily physical effort might postpone the day they'll have to wear oxygen masks outside.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    7. Re:pollution ? by StressedEd · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not really true anymore. I've (unfortunatly) had a few early baths in the Thames, its just very silty. There are a *lot* of fish in there and plenty of wildlife.. Of course it could be better, but its far cleaner than it looks (shopping trollies considered)....

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    8. Re:pollution ? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      London's 'smog' is nothing compared to that of many major cities. What you experienced was probably just the English Permacast(R) weather that we 'enjoy' over here. Apparently, London is overcast fully 50% of the time!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:pollution ? by blane.bramble · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you seen it, or are you spouting a knee-jerk reaction because "everyone knows it's polluted"? It's considered one of the cleanest: Comparison of the Thames and the Severn

    10. Re:pollution ? by elvum · · Score: 1

      If you can afford a 150,000 GBP amphibious car, you probably don't need to lose sleep over the congestion charge.

    11. Re:pollution ? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      There are a *lot* of fish in there and plenty of wildlife..

      The fact that the fish have three eyes and the wildlife is floating upside down is beside the point...

    12. Re:pollution ? by josecanuc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about you, but many of the 'well-to-do' folks I have run into who have nice cars are some of the cheapest people around when it comes to paying for things that nobody can see...

      That's why you hear stories of folks who make millions of [currency] per year and pay nearly nothing in taxes (in the U.S.); why pay for it when you can't flaunt it!

    13. Re:pollution ? by AlecC · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Thames has been massively cleaned up over the last 50 years. Yes, it is generally brown in colour; this is suspended sediment and not pollution. Fifty years ago it was essentially dead; recently the counted (I think) over fifty species in it, including salmon and seal. Not that it couldn't do with a bit more cleaning up, but it is enormously improved.

      Which means that it could do without a load of speedboat/cars on it.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    14. Re:pollution ? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "More importantly, do you avoid the 5 pound congestion road tax in London when you're driving on the Thames?"

      Well yeah, you only get charged that if you drive past a camera.

      Now, do they put C-cameras on the slipways, or do they leave them free to encourage use of the Thames. Are there too many slipways to do that, or few enough that you can't get out of the river in central london anyway? And do they cost more than 5 to use?

    15. Re:pollution ? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Great Stink of London
      ISBN: 0750919752

      Details all of the above. Is a quite good book...very interesting.

    16. Re:pollution ? by KDan · · Score: 1

      Yup. They also had a BBC documentary called "The Great Stink" recently, featuring the great-grandson of sir Baselgate (sp?), the engineer who designed the sewers. Very interesting doc.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    17. Re:pollution ? by chiddiscokid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to Thames Water, "the River Thames is one of the cleanest metropolitan rivers in the world." (PDF).

      Still wouldn't see me swimming in it though...

    18. Re:pollution ? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      London's 'smog' is nothing compared to that of many major cities

      Didn't London pretty much invent the killer fog?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    19. Re:pollution ? by Shimbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Won't pollute the waters? Have you seen the Thames? I doubt it could get much more polluted....

      On the contrary, ever stronger environmental controls, not to mention the fact that there is hardly any heavy industry left, mean that the Thames gets purer every year.

      some notes on the Thames

    20. Re:pollution ? by Mirk · · Score: 1
      Back before they built the sewers in the 1850s or so, the sewage from two and a half million people went into the thames - which is a tidal river at that point. So you have 2.5mil ppl's crap going up and down the thames with the tide. They got outbreaks of cholera from that because the water companies just pumped that water and distributed that to people - drinking beer exclusively was a good plan in those days.

      ``In those days''?!

      :-)

      --

      --
      What short sigs we have -
      One hundred and twenty chars!
      Too short for haiku.
    21. Re:pollution ? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, indeed. But 'pea soupers' have been out of fashion ever since the burning of coal was outlawed half a century ago. Hopefully, the forthcoming Euro V emissions regs should put the mockers on the current scourge of Diesel particulate emission.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    22. Re:pollution ? by DrPepper · · Score: 1

      At least if you have had a bit too much to drink, you can get back home without being pulled over. (It being legal to consume alcohol whilst piloting a boat in the UK).

    23. Re:pollution ? by Planx_Constant · · Score: 1

      Drinking beer exclusively is always a good plan.

      --
      Heisenberg might have been here.
  5. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is until the Thames gets over-crowded.

    If you get into a fender-bender on the water, does it sink?

    At 150,000 pounds, it doesn't seem that unreasonable.

    1. Re:Of Course by hachete · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you wait til one of these things get in the wash from a tanker or a ferry. It'll certainly be a sink-or-swim situation then.

      h.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    2. Re:Of Course by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At 150,000 pounds most people won't have this car, that's a lot of money and it doesn't seem like it's worth it. So the Thames probably won't get over-crowded. And remember, it costs 150,000 pounds, I'm pretty sure the company making it will make a bunch of saftey features in case of an accident on the water.

    3. Re:Of Course by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      If you get into a fender-bender on the water, does it sink?

      If you get into a fenderbender with any kind of boat (regardless of purchase price) you risk sinking. In any event, in a craft such as that I'd be wearing a life vest.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    4. Re:Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 150,000 pounds, it doesn't seem that unreasonable.

      You do realise that 150,000 pounds is its cost, not its weight, right?

    5. Re:Of Course by CheapScott · · Score: 1

      As long as it can still effectively displace 17,973.965 gallons of water, it won't sink.

      (17,973.965 = 150,000 pounds / 8.345404)
      8.345404 pounds per gallon of water

    6. Re:Of Course by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      As long as it can still effectively displace 17,973.965 gallons of water, it won't sink.
      Actually it's 15,000 gallons (150,000 / 10) it needs to displace, unless you were daft enough to cross the Atlantic in it.
      10 pounds per imperial gallon of water.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Only the English! by mantera · · Score: 1

    Only the English could come up with something like that. Remember the Reliant Robin? http://www.3wheelers.com/robin.html Those weird Brit inventors are unbelievably geeky.

    1. Re:Only the English! by Chatmag · · Score: 1

      An amphibious car had been done in production by AmphiCar in Germany. Before that, the Germans in WWII had a Schwimmwagen, by VW. This latest amphi looks like something I'd buy.

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    2. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a geeky new zealander that invented it

    3. Re:Only the English! by mark2003 · · Score: 1

      Indeed - British inventors must be particularly geeky as they invented computers...

      Somebody on /. accusing someone else of geekiness??????

    4. Re:Only the English! by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And only the americans could come up with something as pointless as an SUV. A 4 wheel drive vehicle that does 2 mpg, tips over in a tight swerve
      has poor crash protection and if it does go off road it gets stuck. Compared to that an amphibious car sounds pretty sensible.

    5. Re:Only the English! by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's just the American way of thinning the herd.

    6. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. Gibbs is a New Zealander. They are just launching it in the UK

    7. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      But didn't Land Rover invent the SUV when it designed the ludicrous Range Rover? The original and best SUV, surely?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    8. Re:Only the English! by Yorrike · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the man behind the whole venture is a New Zealander. We've had this story all over the news tonight. Here's an article from stuff.co.nz claiming it was us all along.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    9. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A Land Rover is not an SUV though; there is nothing "Sports" about it. It is an all-round Utility Vehicle though, much beloved by farmers and "upper class" land-owners though. Only in the mid-90's did it become a fashionable town car, and that didn't last too long. Anyone driving a clean Land Rover around a town is assumed to be a total prick these days.

    10. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find he was talking about a Range Rover - yes they're made by Land Rover but they're different. I'd argue they're not SUVs in the ways described previously as you wouldn't get stuck if you went offroad - they're actually pretty good.

    11. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I did write 'Range Rover'. Are you comprehension impaired?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    12. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      The term SUV confuses me no end... I can't recall an "SUV" that could really have sport applies to it. Any suggestions?

      The Range Rover isn't ludicrous anyway, it's a fairly good all round vehicle, if you like that kind of thing, and is very good off road too.

    13. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      My neighbours' Range Rover has a 4.6 litre V8. It is SCARY to drive around corners in, and gets around 10mpg. It also costs over 80 quid to fill up with fuel! My Mazda is a) faster b) cheaper c) MUCH more reliable d) MUCH less expensive to run and insure e) MUCH better looking f) MILES more comfortable. And his Range Rover also has LESS interior space/versatility than the average Ford Focus.

      That makes the Range Rover pretty ludicrous in my book. He does keep it immaculately clean though, and it's a lovely shade of blue...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    14. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      And only the americans could come up with something as pointless as an SUV. A 4 wheel drive vehicle that does 2 mpg, tips over in a tight swerve
      has poor crash protection and if it does go off road it gets stuck. Compared to that an amphibious car sounds pretty sensible.


      I guess Suburbans haven't been a staple of farm and ranch life since they were introduced. Oh wait, yes they have. I suppose there aren't any other common vehicles with high centers of gravity, cause vans and trucks don't have 'em. Nope.
      People's individual driving skill will always trump vehicle limitations. That's why some people roll corvettes and others drive SUVs for years with no problems. As far as 'poor crash protection' um...you *are* smoking something, right? I mean, if I have a choice of which vehicle I'm driving in a Hummer/Corolla collison...well let's just say I'd be scraping the Toyota symbol off my undamaged grill. Even the gas mileage is, these days, comparable to trucks/light duty vehicles. Knee-jerk reactions are fun.
      Note: I don't drive an SUV.

    15. Re:Only the English! by malelder · · Score: 1

      For the two parent posts directly above...

      I consider my Jeep a Sport UV, as much as technical rock-climbing/off-roading can be considered a sport; video gaming is considered a sport, I rest my case (:

      And any small Mazda would have a tough time crossing streams, thick mud, snow, etc....that's what a Range Rover is for. As for an SUV that's immaculately clean, I believe someone answered that question up above, something about being "pricks" (: I find a clean Jeep to be one of the saddest sights on the world...

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    16. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Crash Protection? A guy rear-ended my mom's Durango at 60 mph in a pickup while she was at a dead stop. She drove the Durango home with a busted rear windshield, the 4x4 S-10 that hit her left on a wrecker with the engine beside it. If she was in her old Lumina she would have been pushed up in front of the semi in front of her & would probably be dead. And you'd be hard pressed to get that SUV stuck, believe me I've tried. Whether you'd like to admit it or not some people do have a use for an SUV, and I'm not talking about soccer moms that carry herds of children around. Another thing, why do people rail on SUVs so badly, a 2 wheel-drive v6 SUV gets about the same gas milage as a minivan, but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    17. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that's a load of shit. vehicles (yes even the hummer) are designed to have crumple zones in the front and rear. regardless of who hits what there will be irreparable damage to both vehicles.

      SUV's don't make the driver and it's occupants any safer, they just make the road more dangerous to everyone else.

    18. Re:Only the English! by mark2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one? Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions. Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.

      As for the big vehicle vs. smaller vehicle argument where do you stop? Are you in some kind of arms race? The only reason the Toyota would get totalled is because some moron is driving 15 tons of SUV. If the other car was a normal sized vehicle then they would both be fine. Why not buy yourself an 18 wheeler - then the guy in the Hummer would be toast.

    19. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also wrote "Land Rover" Right there in the first part of the sentance.

      Land Rover good, Range Rover bad.

    20. Re:Only the English! by mamahuhu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alan Gibbs is a New Zealander - the jet boat is a New Zealand innovation - he is just using British money.... so this thread should be "Only the Kiwis!" - and I'd a gree with that - if ever there were a pack of wishful thinkers it's New Zealanders....

      Sorry - I can't link to a Flash page - where's the HTML version?

    21. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      that's a load of shit. vehicles (yes even the hummer) are designed to have crumple zones in the front and rear. regardless of who hits what there will be irreparable damage to both vehicles.

      I'm guessing your knowledge of traffic accidents is limited to TV and what you've read. Hint: irreparable means "not repairable", and most vehicles can be repaired after most crashes.

      SUV's don't make the driver and it's occupants any safer, they just make the road more dangerous to everyone else.

      http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm

      Actually, they *do* make their occupants safer. As far as making the roads 'more dangerous for everyone else', I've been in 3 accidents that were not my fault (and 0 that were) and not once was I hit by an SUV. 1 taxi, 1 accord, and 1 ford pickup have all smashed into me. I drive an economy sedan, and only the accord was damaged in its collision with my car. The large, old taxi had no damage (even though it tore my whole bumper right off) and the pickup was barely scratched, although my car's crumple zones were crumpled enough. Of course, I got my car repaired all three times. SUVs are no worse than vans or large pickups, which have been around forever. Just get over yourself and your class warfare.

    22. Re:Only the English! by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0


      Yes, but we don't have hoards of minivans crowding the streets, do we?

      Unless it's different in the States, of course.

    23. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one?

      Simple: they don't. They show that you are more likely to SURVIVE if you are in an SUV which has a collision. That's why they are safer.
      http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm

      Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions.

      A con? Whatever. They're designed to be the new, more hip mini-van, and they perform admirably for that task. If you need to carry 8 people on a 4 hour drive, that toyota prius gets awfully crowded. I know how they're advertised, but I don't work for an ad agency so I have no control over that. Everyone with intelligence knows that they are not really designed for driving straight up mountains. If you believe that they are, please remove yourself from the gene pool immediately. (I know *some* are really meant for off-road use, but in general, SUVs fill the same role as mini-vans)

      Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.

      Yes, actually, I have. I had NO PROBLEM taking corners at reasonable speeds with reasonable caution. If I wanted a vehicle that drove like a Lotus, guess what? I'd buy a Lotus. If I want a vehicle to cart around a family + friends in comfort, and also be able to shove a ton of groceries/luggage/lumber/whatever in there, then I'm going to buy an SUV.

      As for the big vehicle vs. smaller vehicle argument where do you stop? Are you in some kind of arms race? The only reason the Toyota would get totalled is because some moron is driving 15 tons of SUV. If the other car was a normal sized vehicle then they would both be fine. Why not buy yourself an 18 wheeler - then the guy in the Hummer would be toast.

      Yeah, the SUV is certainly the largest common passenger vehicle. Of course, pickups and vans have been around far longer, and in many cases have worse rearward vision, worse handling, and worse gas milage. It's not an arms race for me, as I drive a 4 door econo-box. I just don't think that SUVs are Satan. I personally believe that SUVs gained popularity so quickly because people were tired of the 8 foot by 5 foot 'sedans' that have been churned out since the '80s. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, it's for effect, like your '15 tons of SUV') If you crash two 'normal-sized' vehicles together, people in both cars are equally likely to be killed. If you crash 2 SUVs together, the same applies. (although the chances of being killed at all are smaller) It's when a sedan/coupe/motorcycle and an SUV have a collision that the SUV driver is far more likely to survive.
      As for why I don't buy an 18-wheeler, well, I don't feel like getting my commercial license. If I felt like I needed an 18-wheeler, say for hauling a large cargo across country, I'd get one. If I need a vehicle for carrying lots of stuff/people, I'll get an SUV. Trying to get soccer moms to buy a prius or a kia rio or something is just stupid.

    24. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Land Rover is the name of the company you dolt.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    25. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      You have a Jeep? My commiserations.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    26. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most SUVs are simply a vain attempt to make a cooler Minivan.

    27. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Well YMMV but it seems to be a pretty homogenous mix of vehicles on the road from where I'm sitting (Florida) . If anything, mostly compacts actually.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    28. Re:Only the English! by MrLizardo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If all you really want to do is haul around your family/friends/groceries then why not get a nice station wagon? Similar cargo passenger/cargo space, lower center of gravity, higher gas mileage/lower emissions. Or isn't it cool enough? Or do you not fancy your odds of surviving a crash when you're in something that's size is on the same order of magnitude with the rest of the vehicles on the road? For what you're using your SUV for its just a (unnecessarily) raised station wagon with crappy gas mileage.

      I think I'll enjoy my '82 Honda Accord a couple years longer: Seats 3 in reasonable comfort + a sub woofer behind the driver's seat, 35 mpg highway, 30 city. Tons of room for luggage if I put the cargo carrier on the roof and the bike rack on the trunk. That's right! I can add more storage space if I need it. Crazy that, huh?

      SUVs are for the most part an unnecesary waste of road space and a threat to drivers of smaller cars. I can't even count on two hands the number of times I've had SUVs try and merge into my Honda on the freeway. If you really take 6 people with you every place you go, along with 2 bikes and a propane grill, crossing snow/gravel/dirt/mud on your way on a daily basis then yes an SUV might fit the bill but I highly doubt thats what you're doing. If you got an SUV so you could look cool and screw over other drivers in the event of a crash than at least be honest about it, that's all I ask.

      -AX

      --
      ^I'm with stupid.^
    29. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1, Informative

      If all you really want to do is haul around your family/friends/groceries then why not get a nice station wagon?

      Because a station wagon seats maybe 5, uncomfortably. It also has less cargo area. A proper SUV can seat 5 in comfort, while still having around 35-40 cubic feet for cargo. Similar isn't the same. Station wagons also don't get better gas mileage, at least not the one I used to own nor the one my ex-wife owned. They got around 12mpg city. A good SUV gets 18-20 city.

      Or isn't it cool enough?
      It was for me. I've owned a station wagon, but never owned an SUV.

      Or do you not fancy your odds of surviving a crash when you're in something that's size is on the same order of magnitude with the rest of the vehicles on the road?

      Do you know what an order of magnitude is? An SUV is the same size (or smaller) than a regular passenger van. Are you saying no one should get vans, either? How about pickup trucks? No? No one can have those either? Because they are the same 'order of magnitude' as an SUV.

      I think I'll enjoy my '82 Honda Accord a couple years longer: Seats 3 in reasonable comfort + a sub woofer behind the driver's seat, 35 mpg highway, 30 city. Tons of room for luggage if I put the cargo carrier on the roof and the bike rack on the trunk. That's right! I can add more storage space if I need it. Crazy that, huh?

      Try carrying 5 people + luggage in your accord on a 4 hour road trip. Yeah, MUUUUCH better than taking an SUV. You're right. Everyone should just cram into tiny plastic cars so that other tiny plastic cars don't get as mangled when they fuck up.

      SUVs are for the most part an unnecesary waste of road space and a threat to drivers of smaller cars.

      Part one of that is your opinion, and part 2 is patently false. An SUV is no more dangerous than any other car on the road. They don't drive themselves, guy. You can't count how many times someone has tried to merge into you in an SUV? Welcome to Earth. I couldn't count on 20 hands the number of idiots in cars that have done that to me. Asshole drivers are asshole drivers whether they're in an SUV or a Miata or an 18-wheeler.

      If you really take 6 people with you every place you go, along with 2 bikes and a propane grill, crossing snow/gravel/dirt/mud on your way on a daily basis then yes an SUV might fit the bill but I highly doubt thats what you're doing.

      I highly doubt it as well. That's why I don't have an SUV. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to buy one. It's a free country, and people in MANY areas of life buy products for other than their IDEAL usage. Grow up. If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one. If other people do, let them buy one. Freedom includes the freedom to let people do things you yourself would not.

      If you got an SUV so you could look cool and screw over other drivers in the event of a crash than at least be honest about it, that's all I ask.

      I don't have an SUV. If I did, I'd get one because I live in a fairly small town and there's a lot of good 'frodin territory around here. However, I certainly wouldn't APOLOGIZE for wanting to survive a crash. I'm sorry if *my* being safer means someone else isn't, but that's life. I've never caused an accident, and I damn sure want to survive any that others cause. I don't see how surviving a crash is 'screwing' the other driver. If they wanted to have a better chance of surviving, they should have chosen a vehicle that gave it to them.

    30. Re:Only the English! by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I wonder if this New Zealander has heard of the othe New Zealander who's building the $5000 cruise missile? Strap one of those cheap jet engines to the back of the amphibious car and you could really waterski...

    31. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      g) a girls car

    32. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      You are obviously a very masculine man. My hat is off to you. Can I borrow some of your after shave?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    33. Re:Only the English! by lechuck80 · · Score: 1
      If you crash two 'normal-sized' vehicles together, people in both cars are equally likely to be killed. If you crash 2 SUVs together, the same applies. (although the chances of being killed at all are smaller) It's when a sedan/coupe/motorcycle and an SUV have a collision that the SUV driver is far more likely to survive.

      Alternatively, this could be read to say that if you drive an SUV you are far more likely to kill someone else. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

      I've seen way to many idiot SUV drivers to justify their existence. They should have to take their own drivers license test. Have you ever driven next to a soccer mom, on a cell phone, driving 80 mph, in a Navigator?

      --
      "Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"
    34. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron whose opinions don't matter.

    35. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      did you read your link past the first paragraph?
      the article says nothing about being safer for the SUV driver, it says they are much deadlier to those in cars that are hit by them. if it makes you feel safer to know that you have a better chance of killing the occupants of the car you t-bone, please stay off the road.

      Light trucks now represent 34 percent of the total fleet on the nation's highways. As a class, they are considered more "aggressive" than passenger cars in crashes. Since 1992, there have been more fatalities in car-light truck collisions than in car-to-car crashes. In these crashes, research shows that 80 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the car.


    36. Re:Only the English! by germinatoras · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with MrLizardo here - SUVs are disproportionately large for the purpose they serve. Many arguments against SUVs have already been well presented, but I'd like to add one more: They block others' view of the roadway. It's very annoying when somebody in a Yukon or Navigator pulls right in front of me, and prevent me from seeing anything else that's happening on the roadway. Station Wagons don't cause the same problem. ([mini]vans block the roadway too, but usually people who buy them really do need them, unlike SUVs.)

      The point is that I really don't see a need for anyone to own an SUV. Most people could get by with a mid-size sedan (and most people do). For those who frequently haul a lot of people, get a station wagon. For those who frequently haul cargo, get a cargo trailor for your existing car. If you only do these things more than occasionally, then just rent a truck when you need one.

    37. Re:Only the English! by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Do you know H2 Hummers are just Tahoe-esque trucks with modified bodies? The bodies add so much weight to the already underpowered engine that their on-board fuel efficiency read-outs regularly display MPGs as low as 1.

      Suburbans have probably been the staple of farm and ranch life because americans like to buy american, as they automatically assume it ensures quality. Unfortunately, manufacturers know that, and the products suffer.

      For a real off-road vehicle, try the Overfinch-modified Range Rover. That's a *real* offroad car, not just some truck with raised suspension and a "I wanna be in the army!" body.

    38. Re:Only the English! by bwalling · · Score: 1

      I've been hoping these would come out for a long time. I live in an area that has a large body of water in the middle of it (Tampa Bay). There are three main bridges that cross the water (about 7 miles). In order to get to work, I have to drive south to one of the bridges, then cross it. If I had this, I could enter the water by way of a boat ramp in a park near my house. I could exit the water on the boat ramp on the other side of the bridge. It would save me a ton of time.

      Of course, these things are priced right out of my league.

    39. Re:Only the English! by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Well, I've seen lots of the so-called "Off-Road" SUVs go head-to-head on muddy fields/hills/forests, etc., and unless you're buying a Range Rover, forget it. All the others just have the ground-clearance and appearance of off-roaders, but perform like your average family sedan.

      New Range Rovers have BMW engines, and unlike the BMW SUVs have all of their off-road technology in place. Automatic hill descent? I don't see that in a Durango. Or a H2. Or anything else.

      Just because it *looks* like it'll do the trick, and you feel all Ruggedly-outdoorsy when you're in it doesn't mean it can do the trick. In fact, the only trick that's been done is the one played on you by the dealership you got it from ;)

    40. Re:Only the English! by mantera · · Score: 1

      "Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany." I don't think a comparison between a Ford and a BMW is a fair one, as a measure of "made in USA" and "made in Germany". How about comparing a low cost beige-box back-to-school mass produced German PC to a dual-64 apple mac G5? maybe then the comparison between American products and germant counterparts would be a little more fair.

    41. Re:Only the English! by DodoNFred · · Score: 1

      I drive a pickup truck; part of that reason is safety. I have never hit anyone, but I have been hit several times and I like the idea that if someone hits me, I have a more than reasonable chance that my vehicle is al least the same size as the one that hits mine. I agree totally that the vast majority of large vehicle drivers don't need them and don't have any idea how to drive them. I also agree that these same people seem to think that they are invincible while driving. The problem with outlawing SUV's or other large vehicles has two problems: 1. Most people don't know how to drive safely, no matter what vehicle they are in at the time. I have seen more unsafe driving by people with small vehicles than larger vehicles, especially motorcycles. Everyone needs to be better trained and held more accountable for their bad driving, not just drivers of large vehicles. 2. If all large vehicles are eliminated, then the medium sized vehicles would then be the most dangerous. If we keep eliminating "large" vehicles, at what point do we stop? When a Honda Accord is the largest? When any car is too dangerous because you can easily kill someone on a motorcycle? What about an accident involving a motorcycle and a pedestrian? What about a 300 pound man walking into a 100 pound women? The effort to eliminate large vehicles is treating a symptom not the disease.

    42. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, let's see what you're saying here...

      If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one?

      Simple: they don't. They show that you are more likely to SURVIVE if you are in an SUV which has a collision. That's why they are safer.
      http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm


      What you gave there are not actual road safety statistics, but a survey, which may, or may not, reflect reality. As a contrast this site says that you are three times more likely to die in an accident when you're driving an SUV than when you're driving a regular passenger car.

      I tried interpreting the actual road safety statistics from the NHTSA, but it's suffienctly obscured to not be easy to interpret. Maybe you'll have better luck.

      A con? Whatever. They're designed to be the new, more hip mini-van, and they perform admirably for that task. If you need to carry 8 people on a 4 hour drive, that toyota prius gets awfully crowded.

      The reason the original poster called them a con is because they are. They're a way of cheating the government into making you pay less taxes. You pay lower taxes on light trucks (why I have no idea), so the SUV was invented as a way of selling cars cheaper. Never mind that truck frames aren't really designed to build cars on. Now, thanks to some great marketing, people consider SUV's cool, but don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that the coolness was the reason SUV's were originally made. Also, this is why it's not possible to build a safe SUV. If you use a car-like frame, it automatically gets classified as a car, and falls into the higher tax bracket.

      If you do need to carry 8 people on a 4 hour drive, then great. By all means, buy an SUV. But most people who buy SUV's do not buy them because they need them, they buy them because they want them.

      I had NO PROBLEM taking corners at reasonable speeds with reasonable caution.

      That's nice, but those aren't the corners he was talking about. The corners he mentioned were the oh-my-gawd-there's-a-guy-in-the-middle-of-the-road kind of emergency manouvers. SUV's simply can not make that kind of corners, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to, since they are, esentially, trucks, and not cars. Also, they have abnormally high braking distances. So, driving an SUV you're much more likely to get into fenderbenders because you couldn't stop in time.

      Remember, accidents don't happen when you're doing something reasonable, they happen when you're doing something unreasonable.

      Trying to get soccer moms to buy a prius or a kia rio or something is just stupid.

      See, the thing is, the idea of the soccer mom is badly exagerated. I highly doubt if more than 10 percent of SUV owners need the space. And I mean really need it, not use it from time to time. If you need to move lumber, you can rent a light truck for a day, and you'll probably save money that way because your normal car will be cheaper to run. If you're picking up all the kids from a soccer match, how about asking ONE other parent to pick up kids too in their car? Suddenly the need for the SUV vanishes.

      I repeat, people don't buy SUV's because they need them, they buy them because they want them. Should people always get what they want? I'd say that if what they want hurts other people, then no. And there is definite proof (as you pointed out yourself) that in a collision with a SUV you are more likely to die than in a collision with a car. Since they are a menace on the road, and serve no useful purpose (other than wildly exagerated, unlikely circumstances), I personally wouldn't object to an outright ban of them. Or at the very least, as in Europe, to have them taxed according to their engine size. In europe you'll notice there are very few SUV's, because people can't afford them. People who need to move lots of people buy minivans (

    43. Re:Only the English! by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that too many people try to drive SUVs like their little 2-door compact, and that is inherently dangerous. They (SUVs) have a higher center of gravity, stiffer suspension, and a shorter (relative to overall size) wheelbase. It takes a different style of driving, just like a jeep and porsche take different styles.

      Now, I drive a 1/2 ton pickup, and so a SUV is basically just like having a heavy shell welded on. It's no problem for me to drive, because I _drive it like a truck_!

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    44. Re:Only the English! by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 0

      If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one? Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions. Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.

      These same statistics show that far more people die in 2 door cars than in comparable 4 door versions. That's right, the 2-door Honda Civic kills many more people per year than the 4-door Honda Civic.

      The problem with the "what kind of car people die most in" statistics is that they ignore the type of people who are driving the car. A lot of SUV purchasers are in groups that are likely to get killed driving a car, regardless of what particular model they drive. These groups include young people and people that drive agressively.

      As for the X5, well, that's not really a sport utility vehicle. So much so that BMW's marketing types refuse to call it that, instead referring to it as a sports-activity-vehicle. This type of vehicle now has its own segment, fairly distinct from SUVs, and is generally referred to (in the US at least) as "crossover vehicles". The Cadillac SRX is another example of such a vehicle. The performance of such vehicles has very little to do with being made in Germany (Gelaendewagens are made there too) and more to do with chassis design and ride height. Such vehicles exchange off road performance (pretty much in its entirity) for on-road performance, i.e., they adapt to the real needs of the consumer while maintaining providing the SUV-like capabilities they still require.

      --
      What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
    45. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Why in Gods name would I need automatic hill decent in Florida. There's about 12 hills total in the whole state. I've tried to get the Durango stuck, I haven't been able to, I.E. it's done every trick I've wanted it to. I can buy 2 or 3 Durangos for the price of your Range Rover. My step-fathers (highly-modified 550bhp) Chevy Blazer could pull the frame completely off of a Range Rover and still costs less. An H5 could drive over (thru) one. Easily. Nice try.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    46. Re:Only the English! by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not saying you need it, but to be a truly off-road vehicle, automatic hill descent is a must.

      Oh, and with off-road vehicles it's the torque that counts, not the BHP. The range rover, on wet grass, can out-accelerate a mercedes SLK on dry pavement. I'd like to see your Chevy Blazer do that :-P

      And the reason you can buy 2-3 durangos for the price of a range rover, is that chevy cars/suvs are awful. Do they really think they look good? please don't say yes!

      Obviously the SUV lobbyists have got to you, so there's no help. You probably vote republican too, so redemption is nigh-on impossible ;)

      apt sig, btw.

    47. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much torque this Blazer has, but I *know* it has more than a stock Range Rover. The Range Rover might out accelerate an SLK, but hook a Range Rover up to this particular Blazer, and I'll pull you where ever I'd like you to go. And obviously since you are such a 4x4 afficianado you know that Chevorolet doesn't make the Durango, Damlier-Chrysler does. And since you brought looks up, yes I'd say a Durango looks much better than a Range Rover, which is one of the ugliest vehicles on the road behind the Pontiac Aztec & Honda Pilot.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    48. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you ever driven next to a soccer mom, on a cell phone, driving 80 mph, in a Navigator?"
      ----

      No. Although were I driving next to a soccer mom on a cell phone going 80 mph, I'd want to be in a Navigator.

    49. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automatic hill descent?

      ------

      You mean wheels?

    50. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? 0-60 in 6.5s? On wet grass?

      Or was that wet grass while going down a hill? No traction means no traction bub. Doesn't matter if you're speedo says you're going 75 if the world's only going by at 5.

    51. Re:Only the English! by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Well, seeing as most american SUVs look so much alike it's unbelieveable, it's an easy mistake to make :)

      And as for your "range rovers look crappy" remark, have you ever actually *seen* one of these things? Their sleek lines are pure style genius. A Dodge Durango looks like some sort of kids toy. No sophistication what-so-ever. And as for the interior, don't even get me started. There's no way Dodge's or Chevy's useless plasticy cheap-ass interiors stand up to the hand-stitched leather and walnut interiors of the RR.

      What's the point in comparing your tweaked-up crate to a stock range rover?? Why not compare like with like? In which case, the overfinch would easily do the deed on your chevy. I mean, really. Let's hear a description of the Range Rover:

      " This precision built unit produces an impressive 380 bhp (+94) and 376 lbs ft (+51) torque, propelling the car to 60 mph in a sports car like 7.1 seconds. Special emphasis has been placed on obtaining high torque values over a broad rev range to produce traditionally effortless Overfinch performance characteristics. Also as part of the 580 Sports model is a Close Ratio Gear Set and a new Dual Exit Contoured Exhaust system with elegant polished stainless steel tips exiting on each side. The exhausts are a discreet visual sign that the 580 S is no ordinary Range Rover.

      Externally the vehicle has also been extensively enhanced with the exterior benefiting from special 12 spoke 20" alloy wheels, full aerodynamic styling (4 piece set), colour coding and privacy glass. Internally, three alternative polished wood packs or a youthful brushed alloy look combine with additional leather work (a hand-stitched dashboard and/or Bentley style seating) to improve the cabin ambience and uniquely personalise the car. "

    52. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Yes I've seen a Range Rover, they are *ugly*, very ugly. This may be a question of regional taste however, because that is an opinion shared by most people I know. Range Rovers aren't much more than a status symbol over here. The only time I've seen a dirty one was on National Geographic (yes, that does speak something for them) A sign that you have more money than brains. You have me on the interior but I'm not a fan of leather (Florida is very hot) anyhow. Your Overfinch would still die a horrible death against *this* particular Blazer. And the Blazer is still cheaper.

      That does seem like a very nice ride you've described however.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    53. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you crash two 'normal-sized' vehicles together, people in both cars are equally likely to be killed. If you crash 2 SUVs together, the same applies. (although the chances of being killed at all are smaller)



      Actually the chances of being killed at all with SUV-SUV accidents are HIGHER, since most SUVs are truck-based designs, which 1) don't have the extensive crumple zones that modern passenger cars have and 2) are much less likely to have passive restraint systems which further protect occupants. Additionally, since the regulations for SUVs are so much more lax than for passenger cars when it comes to braking, handling, etc., the changes of actually getting into an accident go up as well.

    54. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we didn't come up with SUVs, our shitty car producers did and their marketing agencies rammed them down our mouth-breathing throats.

      The reason that SUVs are pumped so much is because they allow the car companies to get around the emissions regulations. They are classified as "light trucks" and are exempt from the mileage and emissions standards that might help with global warming.

      Why do they hate us? That's one reason of several.

    55. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Only the English could come up with something like that.

      Actually it was designed in New Zealand, essential technology for it was developed in NZ, the company owner is a New Zealander, it was moved to England for production to be closer to the market.

    56. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the center console buttons still labeled upside-down in Range Rovers? That was some style genius, to be sure.

      Oh, and automatic hill descent control is a senstitive way to say "designed for people without off-road driving skills".

    57. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      The reason the original poster called them a con is because they are. They're a way of cheating the government into making you pay less taxes. You pay lower taxes on light trucks (why I have no idea), so the SUV was invented as a way of selling cars cheaper.

      There are plenty of SUVs based off of cars. The mazda tribute/ford escape, the rav4 and others I'm not too inclined to look up right now. Many others are built rigid body on frame, and those are the ones more likely to actually perform off-road. As for being 'cool', the suburban, the international harvester scout and scout 2 and such have been around for ages and ages. I doubt all the ranchers/farmers that own them care about looking cool. Besides, just because some people may think something's cool is a stupid reason to argue against its existence. A lot of the 'geek community' buys various tech toys because they think they're cool, or they want to look cool for other people. By your argument, they shouldn't be allowed to, or they should be forced to buy only what you think they should.

      That's nice, but those aren't the corners he was talking about. The corners he mentioned were the oh-my-gawd-there's-a-guy-in-the-middle-of-the-road kind of emergency manouvers.

      Sure, the kind that don't happen when drivers are being responsible. If there's a man in the middle of the road, and you didn't see him in time to avoid him, you're a bad driver NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING. Sure, sure, a small (very small) percentage of acidents are due to mechanical failures, but the VAST majority are driver error. Of course, no one talks about making sure DRIVERS act more safely, let's blame it on what kind of car they drive. If you think that a ford escape couldn't perform better than a passenger van, you're fooling yourself.

      See, the thing is, the idea of the soccer mom is badly exagerated. I highly doubt if more than 10 percent of SUV owners need the space.

      So what you're saying is that people should only have 1 room houses? Offices should be just barely big enough to fit your desk in? Every space we use should be cramped and uncomfortable? Because that's where the 'only use space you *need*' goes, if you extrapolate it. Maybe some people don't like driving tiny cars. Trucks have been around forever, and SUVs are similar in size/handling ability to trucks. Should no one buy a pickup unless they're going to use it daily? I mean, they have beds for hauling, but if you only need to haul stuff occasionally, it's a waste to buy a pickup, right? I mean, who cares about people's preferences when spending their own money to buy things for their own use.

      I repeat, people don't buy SUV's because they need them, they buy them because they want them.

      Keep repeating your unsubstantiated conclusions. Maybe you even believe them. Even if what you're saying was factually correct, so what? Are you saying that people should only ever buy exactly what they *need*? You probably have a computer at home...because you *need* it? Do you have any art in your home? Do you have more than 1 tv/telephone/computer/car/set of clothes? Should those who do be punished? Your argument is silly.

      Should people always get what they want? I'd say that if what they want hurts other people, then no.

      So if you want people to buy less safe cars, wouldn't that hurt people? I mean, if it's all about not hurting people, we shouldn't have cars at all. Then there wouldn't be *any* car crash deaths. Who cares if people want to drive? Cars hurt people. By your argument, then, no one should have them. Neither should anyone be allowed to do *anything* that could in any way, shape, or form possibly hurt anyone else. What a world you'd like to live in.

      And there is definite proof (as you pointed out yourself) that in a collision with a SUV you are more likely to die than in a collision with a car.

      Only if you're not in an SUV as well. It seems to me that if you REALLY cared about

    58. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      did you read your link past the first paragraph?
      the article says nothing about being safer for the SUV driver, it says they are much deadlier to those in cars that are hit by them. if it makes you feel safer to know that you have a better chance of killing the occupants of the car you t-bone, please stay off the road.


      Sure I did. It never said anything at all about all the crashes being CAUSED by the SUV, only that the people in the SUV were more likely to survive. If you really cared about saving people, you'd have MORE of them driving SUVs because then they'd be more likely to survive accidents. If you think that only SUVs cause accidents, you're a fucking moron. You're assuming (and insinuating) that the accidents listed on that site were caused by the SUV driver, when in fact nothing like that is ever asserted. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road are regular passenger cars, and the likelihood of being struck by a regular passenger car is MUCH greater than the likelihood of being struck by an SUV. Most of the problems people have with SUVs are actually with their drivers. If you cause an accident, you are not a responsible driver, unless it is *pure* equipment failure, which it usually isn't. It doesn't matter what you drive if you don't drive well. Also, the "logic" of 'well the SUV driver is more likely to survive a collision with a car, so ban SUVs' is the same as saying that since car drivers are far more likely to survive car-bicycle collisions, the car should be banned. There are far more bicycles in use in the world than cars, and it's a fact that in car-bicycle collisions, the driver of the car survives (and escapes injury) FAR more often than the bicycle driver. By your logic, no one should drive cars at all. I, on the other hand, feel that a good driver will be a good driver in any vehicle, and that we should place more importance on making sure that DRIVERS are safe drivers, and less on making sure that everyone has an equal chance of dying in a collision.

    59. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      You're a moron whose opinions don't matter.

      Obviously they matter to you. You bothered to post, and hid behind AC. It makes my heart warm knowing that you really DO care what I think, and you're just not smart enough to articulate any real response. *smoochies*

    60. Re:Only the English! by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      But the English invented the SUV, first registered 2 Jan 1970. Only the name is American.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    61. Re:Only the English! by dave420 · · Score: 1
      The good thing about Range Rovers also, is they have great air conditioning ;) good enough to dent the humid floridian heat.

      True, they are viewed as status symbols, but co-incidentally they're actually extremely functional at what they do. Which Humvees, etc, just can't claim :)

    62. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The H2 sucks, the H5 is the shit. ;)

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    63. Re:Only the English! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      why not get a nice station wagon? Similar cargo passenger/cargo space,
      I know there are differences between British and American use of the English language, but I didn't realize you like to use "similar" when the phrase we Americans would use is "much less".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    64. Re:Only the English! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Well, I've seen lots of the so-called "Off-Road" SUVs go head-to-head on muddy fields/hills/forests, etc., and unless you're buying a Range Rover, forget it. All the others just have the ground-clearance and appearance of off-roaders, but perform like your average family sedan.

      "Just have ground, clearance" is more than just a "just". It's the be-all, end-all reason I bought a Jeep Cherokee. Ground clearance is necessary if you want to drive in the snow. You can cite statistics about crash safety in slippery conditions with small cars versus SUV's but the fact that they carry out those tests at all proves they aren't doing it under real winter conditions. The fact that the smaller cars are able to achieve those speeds in the first place proves that they are only testing for smooth ice, not snow. In snow, the car couldn't have gotten up to those speeds because it would have been stuck on top of the snow without enough of it's weight being supported by the wheels (so, no traction to get moving). When you live where you can get stuck in snow by driving ON the road, you want ground clearance. Otherwise you are at the mercy of waiting for the snowplow, which means waiting for the snow to stop, which means being stuck for the day.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    65. Re:Only the English! by geschild · · Score: 1

      Way too late to react but still: I've to meet the first American that doesn't think from himself outwards. In other words, who cares if the guy in the Toyota dies because was too poor to buy anything bigger or he was an environmentalist who thinks all children should live in a cleaner environment, including the children of the SUV driving guy as long as I stay alive through an accident, no matter if it was caused because I can't handle such beast of a car properly.

      It is this egocentrism that marks all the US citiziens that I've personally met and that drives me nuts.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    66. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Ok, it depends on what you call a common sense car. Though I think the new Range Rovers particularly are more comfortable than most other things I've been in. Most American "SUVs" I was in while I was last over there were horrible to corner in, but then that'd be expected with that kind of vehicle. If you want roadholding, don't buy one.

      Your Mazda (I assume a smallish normal car?) would presumably not do well in mud etc, which the Range Rover is exceptionally good at - for a large "SUV" (ie compared with a Frontera, Landcruiser things like that).

    67. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      I'll give you that. Seriously though most "SUVs" (would anyone call a suburban an SUV, btw?) are... well... not even designed for it. I suppose the BMW X5 is probably one of the best examples really. It's a big car that's heavy on petrol... sports? hmm

    68. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      My Mazda (for I have two, though I was previously referring to my Xedos 6 only) is a sort of Honda Accord sized vehicle with a 2 litre engine. It's not much use in mud - probably. Not much good under water or on ice either! However, I'd be willing to bet that any SUV without off-road tyres (i.e. 99% of them) is pretty useless off-road too. I'd bet that any 4WD road car that was fitted with off-road tyres would be more than a match for a Range Rover on road tyres.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    69. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Depends on the Mazda... MX5 is fairly girly, true. I don't think that's really relevent. In many ways I think big "SUV"s are becoming increasingly girly cars. The number of women I see driving their little darlings 500 yards to school in a Landcruiser just gets silly, that I would REALLY call a girls car... don't often see men driving them!

      Funny to watch most people parking them though...

    70. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      OH I agree totally. Most SUVs are dire off road. You'd probably be right about the range rover too (except maybe in "deep" water/mud, something like that... large wheels and all). There are other things to consider of course, wheel size, limited slip diffs, low range gearbox etc.

      Also looked up pics of the xedos 6, not too girly certainly ;)

    71. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, the only ACTUAL off-roader I know (a hill farmer) drives a Subaru Forester. That just about wraps it up for SUVs as far as I'm concerned...

      You like the 'six? My other car's an RX7, but I don't go around comparing it to 'normal' cars coz it's a pretty uncompromising design. Shame the whole Eunos/Amati/Xedos plan never came to fruition - they had a wonderful 4 litre V12 ready to go in the Xedos 9...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    72. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      which part of "agressive" don't you understand?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    73. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      which part of "agressive" don't you understand?

      All of it. "Agressive" isn't a word. You're stupid.
      If you meant 'aggressive', you're still stupid. SUVs do not possess that characteristic. People who drive aggressively in SUVs drive aggressively in any other vehicle as well. Try blaming human drivers for their human errors rather than blaming those errors on inanimate objects. You suck.

    74. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      but hook a Range Rover up to this particular Blazer, and I'll pull you where ever I'd like you to go.
      Yeah, normal situation that. Every time I walk down the street I see four or five vehicular tug-of-war games going on.

      Still you've proved what many here say - SUVs aren't dangerous, it's the drivers.

      The mere fact that you make stupid boasts like this about a 550 horsepower truck proves that you are the kind of wannabe macho idiot who shouldn't be allowed behing the wheel of anything.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    75. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      All of it. "Agressive" isn't a word. You're stupid.
      No, I just can't type.
      SUVs do not possess that characteristic. People who drive aggressively in SUVs drive aggressively in any other vehicle as well.
      Source? Certainly in my experience, if there's something two feet off my tailgate at 70 mph and I'm going the same speed as the car it front (just leaving a reasonable gap), 8 out of 10 times it's a fat jerk in an SUV.

      Listen up, troll, I'm not so stupid as to not understand the difference between a car and its driver, but if you think that 1) certain types of vehicles don't attract a certain type of driver and that 2) drivers don't change their behaviour according to the type of vehicle they're in, then you know nothing about human nature. But then this is /.

      You suck.
      Good one. Ho ho ho, what a wit you are. What next, a "yo mama" joke?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    76. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Well... not sure if I'd buy one. My current favourite car for cost effectiveness, value for money etc (thinking medium to long term... reliability etc) would be a 3 or 4 year old E class Merc, prefer that kind of thing to similarly priced new cars. On the other hand, that doesn't make it a bad car :)

      Not actually heard how the Forester deals with being off road. Obviously it works to some extent at least as your hill farmer friend drives one :) Although that depends on how much he pushes it obviously.

      All things considered, the RX7 isn't the most practical looking of cars. Not to say that's necessarily a bad thing, but you were moaning about the Range Rover earlier.

    77. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one?
      Simple: they don't. They show that you are more likely to SURVIVE if you are in an SUV which has a collision. That's why they are safer.
      The latter does not necessarily disprove the former; there's the probability of having the acccident in the first place to consider. Since SUV's tend to be high, heavy, have shit handling, and stopping distances that would embarass a battleship, that's not a trivial consideration.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    78. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      No, I just can't type.

      They aren't mutually exclusive, dumbass.

      Source? Certainly in my experience, if there's something two feet off my tailgate at 70 mph and I'm going the same speed as the car it front (just leaving a reasonable gap), 8 out of 10 times it's a fat jerk in an SUV.

      What's your source for that? I doubt you actually count the number of vehicles riding your ass and classify them. You just don't like SUVs, so when the Lumina or BMW is riding your ass, you just don't care as much. 65% of the vehicles on the road are passenger cars. Only 8% are SUVs. If you truly believe that 8% of the vehicles are causing 80% of the traffic problems, you're stupid. But then, we've covered that.

      Listen up, troll, I'm not so stupid as to not understand the difference between a car and its driver,

      Apparently you are, if you call SUVs 'agressive'.

      but if you think that 1) certain types of vehicles don't attract a certain type of driver and that 2) drivers don't change their behaviour according to the type of vehicle they're in, then you know nothing about human nature. But then this is /.

      Sure. Gramma buys an SUV, now she's running over the cops directing traffic. Whatever. I wonder who caused all the traffic accidents before SUVs were popular. Apparently it takes getting behind the wheel of an SUV to make people mindless jerks. Idiot. Calling for bans on products instead of bans on bad users is retarded. It'd be like banning computers with NICs because some people are jerks on the 'net. (yes, I'm one of them. No, I don't care.) Of course, since you are one of the 'SUVs are inherently evil' crowd, you might think that's a good idea.

      Good one. Ho ho ho, what a wit you are. What next, a "yo mama" joke?

      Nah. I try not to go for the easiest ones. Besides, for all I know you were cloned. Your opinions certainly were.
      Ah, what the hell. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

    79. Re:Only the English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You pay lower taxes on light trucks (why I have no idea), so the SUV was invented as a way of selling cars cheaper.
      Presumably because trucks etc. were working vehicles originally. It would make much more sense to tax all vehicles according to their usage - if it's used for business, you get relief on it.
    80. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      These were originally created to exploit a legal loophole - if it has less than 4 wheels (and no reverse gear) it's technically a motorcycle, so you can (or could) drive it on a lower category of license, with lower road tax too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    81. Re:Only the English! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that's why I don't bring it up when moaning about stupid SUVs. My RX-7 is pretty tight inside and compromised as a general purpose road car - but it's a sports car, was bought as such and enjoyed as such. The fact is that SUVs are designed to be pseudo off-road vehicles and bought to be child transporters. They are spectacularly bad road vehicles by any reasonable definition, and most are terrible off-roaders too.

      The Forester is absolutely great off road by all accounts - my father's friends' is fitted with off-road tyres and he likes it much more than any SUV-type vehicle he's used. Specifically, its much lower centre of gravity makes it a lot safer when tackling a steep bank.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    82. Re:Only the English! by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      The latter does not necessarily disprove the former; there's the probability of having the acccident in the first place to consider. Since SUV's tend to be high, heavy, have shit handling, and stopping distances that would embarass a battleship, that's not a trivial consideration.

      The probability of having an accident (unless it's the very small percentage of mechanical failures that cause accidents) lies with the DRIVER, not the VEHICLE. If someone is on cruise control, talking on the phone, and not paying attention to the road, they are a hazard whatever they're driving. Anti-SUV people make all sorts of baseless assumptions: 1. SUVs cause their drivers to drive poorly. Prove it. Show me people with exemplary driving record in cars who suddenly become hazards when driving an SUV.
      2. SUVs are unchanging. Sorry, they get better gas mileage, better stopping distances, and better collision protection (airbags, and crumple zones and such) every year, just like cars. Or do you people believe that all products are perfect when introduced and no changes are ever made to them? 3. SUVs are unsuited to normal driving. Perhaps SUV DRIVERS are unsuited to driving SUVs, but that is IN NO WAY the fault of the SUVs, which are, after all, merely vehicles.

      If your problem is with irresponsible driving, as it really should be, what vehicle the person is in should not matter. Claiming that there exists a need to ban a product simply because a small percentage of users of that product will not use it responsibly has long been a tactic of fascists like yourself. Were we to broadly apply that logic, almost NOTHING would be legal. Some people use chainsaws irresponsibly, so they have to go. Some people use computers irresponsibly, so bye bye. Some people abuse cough syrup, so no more cough syrup. A hammer can be used irresponsibly, so make them illegal. What you are proposing is NO DIFFERENT. Fascism is fascism is fascism, no matter what facade you attempt to hide it behind. *You* don't like SUVs, therefore they must obviously be banned. *You* are so much smarter and so much more capable of making other people's decisions for them that *of course* we must all agree. Well, I cry bullshit upon that, sir. I am perfectly capable of driving an SUV safely, and while I don't own one, I am going this weekend to attempt to purchase one, because they annoy people like you. I'm getting one that has a better stopping distance than a regular ford f150 (which no one's talking about banning), gets about 20mpg city and about 25mpg highway, and handles extremely well. Of course, you'll never know any of that, because you formed your opinion a while back, most likely from something you heard from someone else, and you haven't ever bothered to update it. I'll be cruising in perfect comfort, knowing that any idiot who hits me is more likely to die than I am. I've been in several accidents, none of which I caused, one of which put me in the hospital, and not one of the offending drivers was driving an SUV. I was once forced off the road by an apparently drunk driver in a Crown Vic. I was almost run over once by a guy in a Fiero that ran a red light. However, I'm not calling for a ban on all cars, because I understand that not every driver is going to be a perfectly safe driver, not every driver is going to make good decisions, but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to drive. Also, if you don't like my reason for wanting an SUV, too bad. Nope, I'm not going to be hauling soccer teams around. Nope, I'm not planning on taking off road every day. Nope, I don't need to haul lots of stuff around. I'm just excersizing my freedoms, and while I intended to get a sedan, I think I can have more fun in an SUV. Don't worry, though, I've driven cargo vans for years, and am familiar with driving high-center-of-gravity vehicles. Of course, people like you probably don't think there are any besides your beloved and hated SUVs.

    83. Re:Only the English! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      It's not my truck, I drive a Neon, fuck-off asshole.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    84. Re:Only the English! by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      True, it is low which is good. On the other hand the old landrover isn't ;)

      TRue enough though, it's silly if someone buys a sportscar and tries to use it for shopping, but a sports car as a sports car makes some sense.

      Large numbers of shogans parked outside school playgrounds are just scary :S

    85. Re:Only the English! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      I said a truck.

      I know it's your father's, and he won't let you borrow it. And who can blame him?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Congestion Charging by steve_2000g · · Score: 1

    Saw this on the telly last night. There is congestion charges for entering London City - I wonder if one would avoid the charges by boating up the Thames?

    1. Re:Congestion Charging by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      Yeah but at 150,000 Stg I reckon you could buy a more than decent 50,000 Stg car and pay the 5 quid daily charge every day for more than 50 years. This car does not seem a very practical solution as far as congestion avoidance is concerned.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Congestion Charging by dTb · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not - it would only be free if you moored on the Thames. You are charged if you have a car on the road at any point in the charging zone. This means that if you live in the zone and just keep your car parked on the road you have to pay a (discounted) fee every day :(

  8. yeah by fuckfuck101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    they say you could take it on daytrips to france as it has a range of 50 miles (the english channel is 22miles long) so you can drive there, drive 6 miles, and drive back, just as long as none of the waves are bigger than foot you won't get wet (why they chose a convertible i`ll never know).

    --
    Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
    1. Re:yeah by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      That would be fun, but rather dangerous. The English Channel is somewhat crowded.

      Still, people SWIM it, I suppose...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:yeah by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

      I did the Channel trip a couple of times and it is one of the most treacherous stretches of water in Europe. I doubt you will make it across in one piece. The salt water will make the car rust within months, too. Though if they rigged this baby enough to survive in coastal waters I think I would start saving up for it, now.

      --
      -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    3. Re:yeah by AceM2 · · Score: 1
      why they chose a convertible i`ll never know


      If they said, I did see/hear it.. However, I just assumed it was because making water proof doors was proving to be a bitch, making a coupe possibly really unsafe.. Even with doors it wouldn't be really safe in my mind.. I saw it on tv and it doesn't look extremely stable to me, I'd feel bad for the guy that spends a ton of money on this and then flips it his first time out.. (Then again.. Maybe I won't feel sorry for the rich bastard.. ;P)
    4. Re:yeah by hplasm · · Score: 2, Funny
      (the english channel is 22miles long)

      Yeh, but just look at the width of it...wow!

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:yeah by mark2003 · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      You may be suprised to know that they do have petrol stations in France, thus giving you unlimited range - provided there is one within 28 miles of the coast.

    6. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tests involving driving the car off the White Cliffs of Dover instead of a boat ramp have proven unsuccessful though...

    7. Re:yeah by johnw · · Score: 1

      > they say you could take it on daytrips to france
      > as it has a range of 50 miles (the english
      > channel is 22miles long)

      The English channel is 22 miles *wide* (at its narrowest point). It's quite a bit longer.

      > so you can drive there, drive 6 miles, and
      > drive back,

      Amazingly, there are reports that even as 3rd world a country as France now has a few petrol stations.

      John

    8. Re:yeah by eXtro · · Score: 1

      Yesh, I really hate having to buy 10 new vehicles to do a cross US trip. Why don't the stupid gits make the range on them enough for a cross-country trip? Oh, yeah, there are gas stations.

    9. Re:yeah by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      It would be quicker, safer and probably cheaper to drive your amphibious car on to Le Shuttle (a car-carrying train service through the Channel Tunnel) at Folkestone and get to France that way. It would take 35 minutes, use less fuel and be a hell of a lot safer than driving a floating car across the world's busiest shipping lane. Not quite as impressive though.

      --
      Suck figs.
    10. Re:yeah by horza · · Score: 1

      they say you could take it on daytrips to france as it has a range of 50 miles (the english channel is 22miles long) so you can drive there, drive 6 miles, and drive back, just as long as none of the waves are bigger than foot you won't get wet (why they chose a convertible i`ll never know).

      The waves will have to be a lot smaller than a foot with a boot/backseat full of beer.

      Phillip.

    11. Re:yeah by fuckfuck101 · · Score: 1, Informative

      since when did le shuttle take 35 minutes? more like 2hours when you concider boarding, the trip then the unloading is even longer.

      --
      Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
    12. Re:yeah by larko · · Score: 1

      > (why they chose a convertible i`ll never know). So they could call it a car that turns into a boat and not a car that turns into a deathbox!

    13. Re:yeah by tubs · · Score: 1

      Great way to avaid customs though, just drive up a deserted beach.

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    14. Re:yeah by fuckfuck101 · · Score: 0

      right now you could full up the convertible and it would still not hold the maximum quantity of goods that customs will allow. what i wanna know is, if you get a bunch of these, like 600, then tie them up like a train, you could in theory walk across the cars to France. failing that, you could run the most successful drug smugling ring known to man!

      --
      Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
  9. avoid congestion where? by Ambush_Bug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the road, I guess...

    I can hear the traffic report now "And the Thames
    is all backed up with those damned amphibious vehicles"

    it would still be pretty cool to have
    an amphibious car anyway. :)

  10. Fast? Not on the Thames. by carndearg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I cant deny that it's a really cool piece of kit and I hope the 150k price isnt so eye-watering that the company goes titsup before they've shifted a unit, but the idea of using it for high speed commuting on the Thames is a non starter.

    I have run a boat on the Thames for some years now and like all other boats on that river it has to obey the speed limit, a stately 4.8 MPH.

    One for the marina in Monaco methinks.

    1. Re:Fast? Not on the Thames. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "I have run a boat on the Thames for some years now and like all other boats on that river it has to obey the speed limit, a stately 4.8 MPH."

      Maybe in the upper controlled parts of the river but in the tidal sections the limits are much higher if there are any at all. How do I know?
      I work 300 metres from the Thames in central London nd see speedboast go up and down every day and believe me , they're doing more than 4.8mph!

    2. Re:Fast? Not on the Thames. by Ugodown · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Havn't you seen the 'Tate to Tate'? Its a big people carrier jet boat that is really quite fast, especially for its size. This boat is certianly going faster than 4.8 MPH. The boat goes from the old Tate to the new Tate Modern.

      --
      --- to swing on the spiral...
    3. Re:Fast? Not on the Thames. by carndearg · · Score: 1
      This may well be true,when I said that I was thinking of the non tidal Thames, i.e. above Teddington, not thinking that the tidal section might have different rules.

      With the UK.gov's war on motorists how long do you think it would be before they had a low speed limit and revenue cameras on every bridge?

    4. Re:Fast? Not on the Thames. by radish · · Score: 1

      In the mornings and evenings that boat runs the commuter service between canary wharf and the city (which is handled by smaller vessels during the day). The speed limit is certainly above 5mph, in open stretches (e.g. past wapping) I'd guess it gets up to maybe 20 or so. The most important restriction seems to be when you are going past moored boats. I believe you are liable for any damage your wake causes, and so when they are near any moored vessels they always slow right down.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  11. This is all well and good... by mrgoatCEO · · Score: 5, Funny

    But when will the missle and torpedo options be available?

    --
    --Goat
    CEO, Goat Software
    Goatblog
    1. Re:This is all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the next James Bond film.

    2. Re:This is all well and good... by Escoutaire · · Score: 1

      I can see the market for the mod kits now...

      Escoutaire

      --
      When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
  12. Where will I enter/exit the water? by t0qer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Boat ramps are the first thing that come to mind, but then there are launch fee's ect that would make me not want to use one.

    Which leaves only a choice.

    Enter/Leave water by shore.
    This car doesn't look like it has 4wd. So it looks like i'd have to gun it really fast to get over the muddy shoreline. Doesn't solve the problem of getting out of the water either. Another problem is most waterways are fenced in these days.

    Dukes of Hazzard Jump.
    I guess you could try jumping the thing off a bridge, but it seems a little dangerous, again, how are you going to get the thing back onto dry land?

    It looks more like a toy for someone that can afford it, instead of a pratical solution for cutting down or avoiding traffic. Reminds me of when my .com CEO was going to get us all some wing in ground effect vehicles to travel from Alviso to Alameda.

    1. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Talthane · · Score: 5, Funny

      According to The Spy Who Loved Me you can use a beach to get out, as long as you're accompanied by Barbara Bach.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    2. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You make some interesting points, but I think the "Dukes of Hazard Jump" option would only be available if the horn plays "Dixie." As it's a British vehicle, I doubt that's an option. Also, since it's an open-top car, how do you plan to jump through the window? Sorry, I'm afraid this vehicle simply isn't up to the standards of the Duke boys of Hazard County.

      P.S.

      I can see ol' Roscoe throwing his hat out the window right now when this thing goes into the water and motors off, while he crashes into the surf! Lordy, the messes he gets into!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Also, since it's an open-top car, how do you plan to jump through the window?

      No, I think this one's okay. The doors don't open, so everyone will have to climb in.

    4. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, shouldn't that be HAZZARD?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Ugodown · · Score: 1
      it looks like i'd have to gun it really fast to get over the muddy shoreline.

      Shore? On the Thames in London, there is no shore, its all built up around the sides. You would have to drive out of town to get to a shore.

      --
      --- to swing on the spiral...
    6. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it'd be pretty anti-climactic when the do their freez frame and bump. If the general lee is amphibious and jumping over a body of water, the doubt about how they'll get outta this one will be there, but not the if.

      I still would love to see the lost episode where the Duke boys find out Diasy isn't really their cousin and figure out how to get her out of those welded on short shorts.

    7. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by madprof · · Score: 1

      Not true - try Putney embankment.

    8. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      Most of the time you don't even have to drive off the road to get into the water there ;-)


      As vindicated by the sight of many a Mercedes being tied to the railings by the fire department to stop them drifting down the river...

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    9. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      The only time i remember 007 using a turn signal was when they were in the submerged Lotus.

    10. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      I can see ol' Roscoe throwing his hat out the window right now

      I don't do that, stop lying ...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    11. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      At most boat ramps you can buy a pass that lets you use the ramp as many times you want (renew every year).

      I doubt you'd have to stop as I'm sure they'd remember you and your funky car.

      I have no clue why these inventers always make amphibious cars convertables. These cars tend to be relatively heavy compared to a boat and will easily capsize in a rough seas. It seems like a better idea to not make it a convertable and make it submergible for brief periods.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    12. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Just find some kind of jetty and reverse it {so the driven wheels stay in contact with something solid as long as possible} into the water. Similarly, you could drive it up onto a beach, assuming you have good enough clutch control .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    13. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only time i remember 007 using a turn signal was when they were in the submerged Lotus.

      Are you sure that was 007 doing this-- or did she just reach over and hit the turn signal for him...

      -cmh

    14. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Chazman · · Score: 1
      Dukes of Hazzard Jump.

      But then you've got to stop mid-air and take a three-minute commercial break, leaving the engine running of course, which hurts both your fuel economy AND your average speed. We'd probably start to see congestion over the fences on the banks of the Thames with all those amphibious cars hanging in mid-air waiting for their commercials to finish. Not to mention the voice-over actor you'd have to bring with you on every jump to give the "Now how you suppose they're gonna get out of this one, folks?" line just before the commercial break begins. I'm afraid it's just more hassle than it's worth.

      --
      -----Chaz
    15. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Escoutaire · · Score: 1

      So would you have to be accompanied by Catherine Bach for the Dukes of Hazzard option?

      Escoutaire

      --
      When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
    16. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are launch fee's

      Come on, people. You don't make something plural by using an apostrophe s. It's just an s. There's nothing wrong with the word "fees."

    17. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
      You make some interesting points, but I think the "Dukes of Hazard Jump" option would only be available if the horn plays "Dixie." As it's a British vehicle, I doubt that's an option.

      The horn would play "God Save the Queen", but Americans would think it was playing "My Country 'Tis of Thee".

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    18. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? by epiphani · · Score: 1

      My personal plan would be to take the intake and exhost pipes up above the top of the car, and then just take it right off the nearest wall. A five foot drop wouldnt be a problem, provided i didnt get water sucked in.

      --
      .
  13. Obligatory. by Ritontor · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new beowulf cluster of... oh, never mind...

    --
    Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
  14. Finally! by beacher · · Score: 1, Funny

    I can post the only kinda Linux car joke that I know!!!
    -B

    1. Re:Finally! by fruey · · Score: 1
      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    2. Re:Finally! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Cool!

      Those guys would be fantastic in Junkyard Wars!

  15. I wonder.. by segment · · Score: 1


    Would driving this car require a boating license at the same time. What happens if you're pulled over by the harbor cops or something, would you have to produce some other form of licensing to drive this on water... Now just think of touring France or Holland and seeing this car in action. Sure it sounds nice but does it really serve a purpose? My guess is, it won't be long until government claims only drug runners will be buying this.

    1. Re: I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Would driving this car require a boating license at the same time.

      Check your local laws on the subject. Where I live you don't need a license for small craft. Not sure how small, but 35ft doesn't need a license here.

      What happens if you're pulled over by the harbor cops or something, would you have to produce some other form of licensing to drive this on water...

      Where I live, the water patrol request similar things to the State Highway Patrol, except you don't need insurance on the water. You need floatation devices, flare gun, blow horn, and a few other odds and ends, even on a jet ski. Check your local laws on the subject, you may need to switch to red and green side marker lights to reflect port / starboard.

      Now just think of touring France or Holland and seeing this car in action. Sure it sounds nice but does it really serve a purpose? My guess is, it won't be long until government claims only drug runners will be buying this.

      The commute in Washington on puget sound would be a hell of alot better via boat then by car. Ferries are full, and the major interstates can slow down to an average of sub 10mph. Anyone working for Microsoft who has to commute cross the lake would probally buy really consider this boat rather then putting up with the traffic on the floating bridges. This is a major slowdown point and has already resulted in people choosing to go via row and paddle boat rather then waiting for the bridge to clear.

      I would suspect that the target market would be people who have to commuite over bridges where a boat would offer lowest delay but you don't want to actually pay for morrage.

    2. Re: I wonder.. by raind · · Score: 1

      Also wonder how long metal parts will last with prolonged exposure to water?

      --
      Get up!
    3. Re: I wonder.. by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Sorry, how is that any different to leaving a boat on the water?

      In fact, at least the car can be parked out of the water easily, so will air dry.

    4. Re: I wonder.. by AlecC · · Score: 1

      You don't need a boating licence anywhere in the UK; every year the Lifeboat Service has to rescue a few dozen idiots who think that because they can drive a car they can drive a boat ten times the size. The Gov. is considering having a licence for medium bots (about big enough to sleep on upwards).

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  16. Re:What's going on here? by strange_attract0r · · Score: 1

    And I saw it on the front page of The Press this morning (in Christchurch, NZ, it is now 11pm)

    --
    This sentence no verb
  17. And in 40 years... by Dobob · · Score: 1

    We'll hear everyday of congestion on the Thames, because every dandy will have those cars.

    More seriously, I don't know how much traffic there's on the Thames, but I don't think the amphibious car will fare well in the wake of the big ship. And since the article doesn't talk about the possibility of getting upside down. Anyway, it's clear that you'll nead to avoid going in rough water if you don't want to get wet seats...

    1. Re:And in 40 years... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative
      No big ships use the Thames anymore, at least not up as far as London. Docklands, what used to be some of the largest docks in Europe, have mostly been converted to luxury offices and housing. Large ships dock further east, as cheap train and road transport made the London docks uneconomical.

      As for rough water, you won't find much of that either on the Thames around London

      People would be mostly competing with a few barges and small tourist boats.

    2. Re:And in 40 years... by radish · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, I live in docklands and commute (by boat) to the City every day. Decent size cruise ships (not the really big ones of course, but big nonetheless) come up the river roughly once a week. There are a couple which are regular visitors. You also get visits from foreign navy ships, frigates normally though I have seen a heli carrier once. They usually moor next to HMS Belfast (itself rather large) opposite the Tower of London. If you take a look at Belfast you can see the huge orange buffers chained around it's hull to protect it.

      Sure you don't get anything like a tanker or bulk carrier, but it's still quite a shock the first time you look out of your window and see a wall of balconies floating past :) The biggest one I ever saw was called The World (it hit the papers maybe a year ago, it's basically a floating apartment block for the super-rich). That didn't get past Greenwich though.

      Oh and in winter it can get a bit rough too - a couple of feet of swell is not uncommon, combined with a rain storm and wind would make that convertible rather unpleasant!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:And in 40 years... by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Actually, containerisation of cargoes led to the closing down of the docks. As containers started to become the de facto method of shipping goods, large docks weren't needed, as one crane can easily lift a huge amount of goods, drop them on a truck/train and off they go. Instead of needing a huge crew of guys messing around with sacks of things, etc.

      WW2 didn't help, with most of the docklands being obliterated.

  18. Was it also resistant... by EvilNutSack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... To all the pollution in the Thames? Ok, so we don't dump raw sewage into it like in the Victorian times but I'd hardly bathe in it.

    --
    --
    1. Re:Was it also resistant... by GusCubed · · Score: 1

      Hey, there's fish in the Thames and all now so it can't be THAT bad.

      Having said that, it's probably brimming with Wiel's disease from all the rats. It kind of takes the fun out of being able to drive/boat/drive across the Thames if you need to take a shower everytime you do it.

      --
      =#= Man, you are such a loser! Why can't you be an individual, like the rest of us?
    2. Re:Was it also resistant... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not all that filthy, actually - doesn't smell bad at all. You wouldn't want to swim in it though, it's tidal (in London) and extremely treacherous.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  19. Ze Germans by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, sir, the Krauts were at it long before the Brits. The had an interesting 4x4 volkswagen type 166 aka Schwimmwagen. I always wondered how the SUV's would look like in the "Nazis won WW2" alternative history. Since the Allies won, most 4x4 vehicles are more or less jeep-like. In the "Vaterland"/"Man From The High Castle" worlds, 4x4 vehicles would probably resemble the military volkswagens. And thus would have amphibious capability as early as in 1940's.

    1. Re:Ze Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you haven't seen the Honda Element...?

    2. Re:Ze Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the "Vaterland"/"Man From The High Castle" worlds, 4x4 vehicles would probably resemble the military volkswagens. And thus would have amphibious capability as early as in 1940's.

      And the guy who sold it to you would NOT be a Jew for once.

    3. Re:Ze Germans by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Oh my, Godwins law within the first 2 minutes of reading a thread.

      Who were you arguing with, out of interest?

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    4. Re:Ze Germans by Gestahl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Technically, he only mentioned Germans, not Nazis or Hitler. And he did not use it to argue or to compare something to out of malice. I wouldn't invoke Godwin's law here. Now if he said "These amphibious cars are the destruction of society... you know who else had them right? The Nazis!" then we might have an issue. Or maybe my sarcasm detectors just out of batteries... (goes to find battery tester).

    5. Re:Ze Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope that was not tongue-in-cheek, and not just another idiot who screams "g0dwin's l4w!!%$^@" the instant they see anything remotely related to Nazis or Hitler. It's worse because it was actually on-topic.

    6. Re:Ze Germans by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      I always wondered how the SUV's would look like in the "Nazis won WW2" alternative history.
      Neat link about the Schwimmwagens thanks, never heard about them until now. Interesting that you think that Nazi loss has something to do with them drying out (pun intended), 'coz, obviously, Volkswagen went on to produce the world's most popular car even after the Nazis lost WW2.
    7. Re:Ze Germans by kahei · · Score: 1


      Machine, what is two plus two?

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    8. Re:Ze Germans by EinarH · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Volkswagen where not allowed to produce military-like vehicles until the early 60's.
      I read something about Mercedes Benz not being able to start research and production of some categories of military equipment before as late as 1968.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    9. Re:Ze Germans by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I should have given a little <g> sign, shouldn't I? Trying to make humour out of Godwin is best left to trained professinals I see =)

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    10. Re:Ze Germans by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      I read something about Mercedes Benz not being able to start research and production of some categories of military equipment before as late as 1968.
      They made up for lost time with the S class, though.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't James Bond drive one of these things in every other movie?

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by cyber_rigger · · Score: 1

      Where's the flying cars?

  21. Empty rivers... by madprof · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many rivers in the UK have speed limits far lower than the 30mph top speed of this vehicle to stop bank erosion, and why do they insist in the article that the Thames is underused?
    There are lots of boats on the Thames already - often rowers in lightweight crew boats that swamp easily. They can do without tidal waves being generated.

    1. Re:Empty rivers... by Sideswiped · · Score: 1

      not to mention the lack of boat ramp accesses that would even make this feasable

    2. Re:Empty rivers... by madprof · · Score: 1

      Rowers have been racing and training on the Thames upstream of Putney for centuries.
      It's not a busy stretch of river and most craft are very sensible.

    3. Re:Empty rivers... by dcollis · · Score: 5, Informative

      I currently row on the river for my university in an 8 (one of the more stable rowing boats) and we already have problems being washed down by other boats. And thats at 6 in morning. During the day the problems increase. I'd say there was already plenty of traffic on the thames. If there is going to be more usage of the thames, then water bus/taxis should be the answer. In sydney this system works extremely well.

    4. Re:Empty rivers... by radish · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I get a water bus to work every day. The Thames (in central london anyway) is actually one of the busiest waterways in europe. It's mainly tourist/sightseeing boats, but there are a number of commuter services, and even fairly frequent visits by cruise ships, yachts, etc. You even get traffic jams at busy times, particularly around popular piers.

      Oh and to answer some questions in a different thread, there are quite a few slips and ramps along the thames (particularly to the east), and I've never seen anyone charging for access. There's one about half a mile from where I live, and you could just drive straight down into the water no problems.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Empty rivers... by madprof · · Score: 0

      That is, not as busy as a busy road....

    6. Re:Empty rivers... by madprof · · Score: 1

      Be thankful you're not shoved out in a scull. :-)

    7. Re:Empty rivers... by dcollis · · Score: 1

      hehe, yeah. its our job to run them down :P.

    8. Re:Empty rivers... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      And people have been riding horses along roads for centuries but I don't see any on the M1 these days.

    9. Re:Empty rivers... by madprof · · Score: 1

      The Thames upstream of Putney is not the river equivalent of the M1.

  22. No way by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 1, Funny

    What about the all the roads getting wet'n'slippery for normal people?

    1. Re:No way by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't drive on wet roads? Uhhhh, maybe you should go back to driving-school.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:No way by browman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Er.. you're obviosly not familiar with English weather...

      Forget driving through rivers, every spring for the last 5 years or so has seen major flooding on everything from back roads to town centres and motorways in the UK.

      --
      You fool! You've given cheese to a lactose intolerant volcano god! Do you know what that means?
  23. Eco Possibilities are guresome by Bo+Vandenberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what we need:

    Jets chewing up fish beds
    Pollution in whole new areas, right in the water table.
    Yahoos leaving the road at strange places to enter water.
    Soil erosion and commuter traffic on the river.

    yipee

    1. Re:Eco Possibilities are guresome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      go back to hugging trees, hippy.

  24. style by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just watched the video on their website...I expected it to be boxy and ugly, as I would imagine a lot of compromise would have to be made to design a vehicle like this. I was pleasantly surprised to see it actually looks pretty stylish. Makes sense...the price tag is pretty hefty, so you'd have to have some serious scratch to buy one, and nobody wants to spend a few hundred grand to look like you're driving a box.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:style by __aafutm5472 · · Score: 1

      nobody wants to spend a few hundred grand to look like you're driving a box.

      Really?

      Are you sure?

      I priced one up on MB's website, and it came in over $100k. Looks like a box to me!!

    2. Re:style by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Wow, I stand corrected!! Maybe if it's a very stylish box...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  25. The problems of British industry by panurge · · Score: 1, Funny
    The UK has a long sad history of inventors producing things that are unaffordable, impractical, or both, owing to a cultural blindness that seems to prevent reality checks. Of course other nations have their cultural blindnesses too...Spruce Goose, anyone?

    • Hovercraft
    • Sinclair C5 (don't ask if you never saw one)
    • Concorde
    • The monarchy (flamebait)
    • The Titanic
    • Nuclear waste reprocessing
    • Record breaking helium balloons that leak
    • Floating cars
    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention 'colonies'.

      Plus us british people hate the monarchy anyway. Tourists on the other hand...

    2. Re:The problems of British industry by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Hovercraft"

      Yes , their impracticality would be why they were used in passenger service cross-channel for 30 years and why so many military marine forces (including the US)
      use them as landing craft.

      "Concorde"

      Twice the speed of sound and still not matched by anything built elsewhere. Nuff said.

      "The Titanic"

      A good ship with a lousy crew. Your point is?

      "Nuclear waste reprocessing"

      Yeah , why reprocess and reuse it when you could just toss it in the sea instead.

      You're an idiot.

    3. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an idea! Let's list all failed U.S inventions from the past.

      Do we start with grilling machines? Car wax?

      Wait! But that's not all!

    4. Re:The problems of British industry by hplasm · · Score: 1
      What the hell is wrong with Hovercraft??? They are doing fine, thank-you-very-much, except in the UK, where all good ideas die of apathy.

      Check some out here

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:The problems of British industry by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The UK has a long sad history of inventors producing things that are unaffordable, impractical, or both, owing to a cultural blindness that seems to prevent reality checks.

      I think your interpretation is incorrect. The Brits have an amazing history of invention -- I think they could quite probably boast at being the greatest nation of inventors in the world. However, they are normally really crap at the business side of things.

    6. Re:The problems of British industry by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Internal Combustion Engine
      Jet Engine
      Electric Motor
      Television
      Disc Brakes
      Depth Charges
      Fax Machine
      Lightbulbs
      World Wide Web
      Viagra
      Vacuum Cleaner
      Toilet Paper

      etc etc etc...

      Yeah, the problem with the British is that they keep inventing these unaffordable, impractical things...

      --
      Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    7. Re:The problems of British industry by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Sadly true. Always been a problem as well. Babbage complained that if you demonstrated a new type of potato peeler in the US, everyone would leap on the idea and see how it could be improved further, whereas in England, it would be declared useless because it does not also peel apples.

    8. Re:The problems of British industry by johnw · · Score: 1

      > Fax Machine

      Which amazingly was invented before the telephone!

      > Lightbulbs
      > World Wide Web

      I thought that was more a product of Swiss industry (albeit by an Englishman).

      John

    9. Re:The problems of British industry by GusCubed · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Good point, well made. But I still feel the need to wave the Union Jack and say:
      • The Steam engine
      • The Jet engine
      • The lightbulb - yes you read that right - Joseph Swann beat Edison by several years
      • The Electric motor
      • Radar and Sonar
      • Television
      • the World Wide Web
      • The telephone
      • Penicillin
      • The decimal point!
      • Cordite
      • tarmac
      • polyester


      And many more I've missed. I don't think you could call any of these inventions impractical. As for reality checks, several inventions were condemned as pointless at inception, it just goes to show you never can tell...

      personally I think this amphibious car will sink without trace.

      'The telephone is such a marvelously useful invention that I can see the time when every town in America will have one!' - Mayor of Chicago, some time long ago.
      --
      =#= Man, you are such a loser! Why can't you be an individual, like the rest of us?
    10. Re:The problems of British industry by nobbis · · Score: 1

      Don't fret. It's not an English invention but actually another (along with powered flight) New Zealand invention.

    11. Re:The problems of British industry by oshy · · Score: 1

      For those that havn't seen a Sinclair C5

      http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/vehicles/c5.htm

      Oh and with enough polution, any car can drive across the Thames.

    12. Re:The problems of British industry by iapetus · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yes, but that was in the past, which is a different country, and besides, Babbage is dead.

      These days, if you demonstrate a new type of potato peeler in England, people will look on unimpressed, but probably use it if it's really that much better. If you demonstrate it in the US, you'll be sued for patent infringement by upwards of seventeen companies with overly broad patents ('handled device for doing stuff in the kitchen').

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    13. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Titanic"

      A good ship with a lousy crew. Your point is?
      --

      Which was designed by compartments where one would fill up and spill over to the next? Perhaps the worst ever designed liner in the entire world? I believe *that* was his point dumbass.

    14. Re:The problems of British industry by elvum · · Score: 1

      CERN is (mostly) in Switzerland, but it's in no way Swiss. It's an international organisation, appropriately. It'd be fairer to call the web an invention by a Briton, I guess.

    15. Re:The problems of British industry by taff^2 · · Score: 0

      not forgetting the stream slingshot used on every aircraft carrier the world over

      --
      Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
    16. Re:The problems of British industry by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1
      Internal Combustion Engine

      Nicolaus Otto (German), shurely?

    17. Re:The problems of British industry by VCAGuy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the facsimile was an Italian invention installed first in France--ever heard of the pantelegraph? Not to mention that the first real "fax" machine was invented by the Japanese who couldn't use teletypes to send messages in Japanese.

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    18. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      *ahem* Mr Joseph Swann came up with lightbulbs several years before Mr Edison.

      John Logie Baird, a Scotsman, invented the television.

      As for jet engines: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljet engine.htm -- so Britain and Germany really share equal honours here...

      Go away and *research* things before posting wildly innaccurate statements...

    19. Re:The problems of British industry by fcw · · Score: 1

      Cross-channel hovercraft offered poor service compared with ferries, and their wanky pretence of being 'flights' across the channel did nothing to alleviate this; they were uncomfortable, and much more sensitive to weather conditions than the ferries, and only had speed in their favour. The channel tunnel took that advantage away, hence no more hovercraft across the channel.

      Concorde was an engineering wet dream that the politicians latched onto to create a status symbol. It looks fantastic in flight, but it's expensive, cramped and stupidly noisy. I'll be delighted when it no longer flies over my house.

    20. Re:The problems of British industry by LSD-OBS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lightbulbs- NO. You GOTTA be joking here. Thomas Edison was NOT British...

      Erm, Nikola Tesla actually. Although he was Serbian. Edison funded research and marketted the suckers.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    21. Re:The problems of British industry by LSD-OBS · · Score: 2, Informative

      And to clear it up, the lightbulb does seem to be a british development.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    22. Re:The problems of British industry by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Actually, an african-american by the name of Garrett Augustus Morgan invented the traffic light (http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/morga n.htm)

      There are more American inventions in your list, but that's all I wanted to nit-pick though.

      Americans are also the founders of many useful processes. One major idea is the idea of machining. Britian was going to tax the Colony on the crappy machine tools they had, so we made our own superior quality machines which was a cornerstone of the industrial revolution. One machine tool was then turned around to make parts for a new one and so on and so forth. During World War II, something like 5000 unique machine tools were created to make parts. Now, the manufacturing process works in stages, where you take a blank piece, put it in each machine needed to do a unique task on the piece. I saw a History Channel show about it, they were showing that today, for example, they had a part about the size of a tire that delivers fuel to a jet engine. When it turns, it can drain all the water in an olympic-sized swimming pool in 59 seconds! Only in America...

    23. Re:The problems of British industry by panurge · · Score: 1
      Hydrofoils make better ferries than hovercraft, as just about every other country knows.

      Concorde is hellishly noisy, cramped, unsafe, and has never repaid the development cost.

      The Titanic was poorly designed and weak - it's been pointed out that one of Brunel's ships would most likely have survived the collision with the iceberg.

      And nuclear waste processing has resulted in a large economic loss for the UK, polluted parts of the North-West and left the Irish sea full of radioactive waste. Why reuse it when you could toss it in the sea instead? They DID toss it in the sea.

      I may be an idiot, but like the guy above who listed a whole load of foreign inventions as British, you're a chauvinist. Now go and salute your Union Jack and remind yourself that Britain once had an empire.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    24. Re:The problems of British industry by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      British carriers don't use them do they? I thought they relied on harriers.

    25. Re:The problems of British industry by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Internal combustion engine - Invented by Rudolf Diesel, born in Paris in 1858 to Bavarian immigrant parents and educated at Munich Polytechnic (Germany).

      Television - The original television was a british invention, but it was Philo T. Farnsworth (American) who invented the television picture tube that made it affordable and practical for everyone to own.

      Disk Brakes - Patented in England, 1902, by Dr. F.W. Lanchester. These brakes were not as effective at stopping as the contemporary drum brakes of that time and was soon forgotten. The design was reinvented by American manufacturers during WWII for use on aircraft landing gear. (I suppose the British could be credited with it's invention though, even if the design was flawed)

      Fax Machine - Patented by Scottish mechanic Alexander Bain in 1843.

      Lightbulb - First successful electric lightbulb invented by Thomas Edison and first demonstrated in Menlo Park, New Jersey in 1882.

      World Wide Web - Evolved from a communications network developed under DARPA funding. (ARPANET anyone?) What eventually became the "World Wide Web" was developed by CERN (Based in Geneva, Switzerland.)

      Viagra - Because we all know the Brits have severe problems with erectile disfunction. (Sorry, couldn't resist the obvious joke!)

      Toilet Paper - Invented by American Joseph Coyetty in 1857. (The British Perforated Paper Company marketed the first paper specifically to be used for wiping after using the toilet in 1880. This paper came in boxes of small pre-cut squares.) Toilet-paper in roll form became common in America by 1907.

      It should also be clarified that the compressor-driven type jet is a British invention. There were other types of jet propulsion prior to it's development.
      =Smidge=

    26. Re:The problems of British industry by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Internal Combustion Engine

      In your dreams. The steam engine is not an internal combustion engine.

      > Jet Engine

      Shared honors with Germany, though the British radial design certainly wouldn't dominate the market later on.

      > Electric Motor

      Please do elaborate.

      > Depth Charges

      That's like bragging with DDT--in the end you just need it because you have lice.

      > Viagra

      Considering what it's meant to solve, I'm not so sure I'd be all that proud of that.

    27. Re:The problems of British industry by melevitt · · Score: 1
      What eventually became the "World Wide Web" was developed by CERN (Based in Geneva, Switzerland.)
      Uhh. It was invented at CERN by Tim-Burners Lee, who is British. Geezz and it was only about 10 years ago. You didn't even need to crack a textbook for this. You could have looked this up on Google.
    28. Re:The problems of British industry by madprof · · Score: 1

      Frank Whittle was German? Ho ho ho.
      Television was firstly achieved by Logie Baird. Superior systems obviously overtook his pretty quickly but he was first with it.
      Thomas Edison was definitely not British, you're right.

    29. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not sure which school you went to but..
      Lightbulbs- NO. You GOTTA be joking here. Thomas Edison was NOT British...
      My biology teacher was a relative of the inventor of the light bulb a one Sir Joseph Wilson Swan. He had the same feeling of contempt for Thomas Edison that his great great uncle must of have. As alway a great British invention stolen and perfected!
      Jet Engine- NO. Invented by GERMANY.

      What history book are you reading? Maybe the one written by Hollywood? Everyone knows that Sir Frank Whittle invented the jet engine back in 1930 when he patent it and then tested it in 1937. He was English if your crazy enough to think that Whittle sounds German.
      Television- NO. Invented by a US farmer/inventor, who got the idea from how he plowed his fields(scanline)

      Again,you seem to have rewritten the history book. As we all know that a one John Logie Baird invented the tv. He was Scottish by the way!
    30. Re:The problems of British industry by ros0709 · · Score: 1

      > Fax Machine - Patented by Scottish mechanic Alexander Bain in 1843.

      Last time I looked, Scotland was part of Great Britain.

    31. Re:The problems of British industry by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Only if you flooded the first five in a row, then it would spill over the bulkheads. The first four could be flooded and it would still float, no problem. That was their failsafe design, but it didn't go far enough.

    32. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no, Edison didn't sell the "suckers". The light bulb "invented" by the Edison's lab was never practical. It would burn out almost right away. Here's me being Chekov. The light bulb that is in common use today was invented by the Russian inventor Yablochko.

    33. Re:The problems of British industry by ros0709 · · Score: 1

      > Television Baird's system was mechanical. The CRT-based system we know and love was developed at roughly the same time by, I believe, Germans.When the BBC started transmitting television they experimented with both systems; I believe Baird's was the very first though. Claiming Baird invented television seems to me to be akin to claiming that the first baloonist invented manned flight. Well yes, it's sort-of true, but not really what you meant.

    34. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fax Machine - Patented by Scottish mechanic Alexander Bain in 1843.

      I know you're an American, but Scotland is part of Great Britian you know.

      Lightbulb - First successful electric lightbulb invented by Thomas Edison..

      Oh I'm sorry, show the man what he could have won! Joseph Swann invented and demonstrated a practical lightbulb several years before Edison.

      World Wide Web - Evolved from a communications network developed under DARPA funding. (ARPANET anyone?) What eventually became the "World Wide Web" was developed by CERN (Based in Geneva, Switzerland.)

      NO! Will you people stop doing this! The World Wide Web is not the same thing as the Internet! The Internet was invented in the U.S (Although packet switching was invented independently both in England and the US at the same time). Tim Berners-Lee is an English man who invented the World Wide Web (HTTP and HTML) at CERN in the early 90's.

      Toilet Paper - Invented by American Joseph Coyetty in 1857.

      Thats fine, but the modern flusing toilet was invented by Thomas Crapper in 1872.

    35. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Puzzled* Errrmmm... where did I say that the Scots aren't British?

      May I assume that Gibberish is your first language, as you seem to be having such problems with English?

      --
      MW
      25% Scottish,
      25% German,
      50% English,
      100% British

    36. Re:The problems of British industry by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, though. He just came up with the first lightbulb that was practical for mass production due to being longer-lasting than previous efforts.

    37. Re:The problems of British industry by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      World Wide Web

      Excuse me?

    38. Re:The problems of British industry by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "The Titanic was poorly designed "

      Actually compared to ships of the day it was designed very well. One of the sub contractors used cheap rivets which popped under extraordinary
      circumstances and if the lookouts had been doing their jobs properly they may have seen the million ton iceberg 10 minutes before they hit it.

      "And nuclear waste processing has resulted in a large economic loss for the UK, polluted parts of the North-West and left the Irish sea full of radioactive waste."

      Total and utter BS. Reprocessing makes a profit , the NW is NOT polluted (except from what came from chernobyl) and the irish sea has bugger all
      radioactive waste. The levels coming from sellafield and BELOW natural levels found in cornwall. How about you give the right-on student ideology a break go get a clue before you open your mouth.

    39. Re:The problems of British industry by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Cross-channel hovercraft offered poor service compared with ferries,"

      Oh , so you mean the 40 minute crossing time was irrelevant? I think not.

      "The channel tunnel took that advantage away"

      Yes , and it didn't do the Ferries any favours either. So what? A service doesn't last 30 years with no subsidy if its crap and no one is using it.

    40. Re:The problems of British industry by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      Lightbulbs- NO. You GOTTA be joking here. Thomas Edison was NOT British...
      No, but Joseph Swan, who invented the electric light bulb, was. {He was a Wearsider - so I bet Newcastle avoided electric light on general principles for a loooong time.....}

      Sir Frank Whittle and John Logie Baird also were British last time I checked.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    41. Re:The problems of British industry by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

      Um...Did you just pull this out of your ass... For a few things on your list, without researching.

      The Jet Engine - Frank Whittle in 1930's in the UK

      Ok... Now

      Viagra - A Pfizer product - Based in New York NY
      WWW - Got it's start as DARPAnet -US Dept of Defense or did you mean surfing with a browser (Mosaic, University of Illinois)
      Television - Your choice RCA (Radio Corp of America) or Farnsworth a Mormon farm boy.

      OR... do I need another cup of coffee, and you intended to list American invented products...

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    42. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British Inventions:

      1. football (yanks please note that football is a game played with your feet using a ball hence the name, and is the most popular sport in the world)
      2. cricket (er... need I say more ?)
      3. golf
      4. invading countries
      5. snooker/billiards (from which all others derive)
      6. Baseball (!)
      7. ... need to do more research

      didn't the Brits also invent America ?

    43. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire British Navy does not operate with Harriers alone. Although you can add VTOL to the list of inventions.

    44. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWW

      If another one of your fucking idiots confuses the World Wide Web with the Internet again I am going to come to your house and beat the living shit out of you. Fuck off back to AOL if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the topic of discussion.

      Television - Your choice RCA (Radio Corp of America) or Farnsworth a Mormon farm boy.

      Or John Logie-Baird, a Scotsman. Yup, that'll be John then. His was a mechanical design that relied on a scaning disk, but he was most certainly the first to transmit an image via. radio.

    45. Re:The problems of British industry by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      No,if you're Checkov, then that's "Wussian" inventor.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    46. Re:The problems of British industry by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      They are part of the G7, how crap can they be?

      Yes, they could be better.... but they arent crap.

      At least they did rule 30% of the planet at one point, and they probly secretly still do.

      Their taxes suck, well they did invent them.... then again also we can blame them for the concept of Central Banks and the Rothchild which made the FED and are ruining the planet with inflation and fake money not backed by gold.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    47. Re:The problems of British industry by johnw · · Score: 1

      > WWW - Got it's start as DARPAnet -US Dept of
      > Defense or did you mean surfing with a browser
      > (Mosaic, University of Illinois)

      You're confusing the web and the Internet - they're not the same thing. The Internet did indeed originate as DARPAnet/ARPAnet but the WWW originated at Cern in Switzerland.

      HTH
      John

    48. Re:The problems of British industry by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      I think they could quite probably boast at being the greatest nation of inventors in the world.

      Actually, that distinction probably rests with the Scots.

      If it's not Scottish, it's CRAP!

    49. Re:The problems of British industry by johnw · · Score: 1

      > Don't forget that the facsimile was an
      > Italian invention

      Scottish I think you'll find.

      > installed first in France

      correct.

      John

    50. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had is actually been a failsafe design I dare say that the Titanic would still be sailing today (though likely only as a museum).

    51. Re:The problems of British industry by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 1

      well, actually, the WWW is from switzerland via an englishman.

      wrote the first server and browser on the NeXT. In fact, his browser was even graphical.

    52. Re:The problems of British industry by matfud · · Score: 1

      However its two sister ships sailed for many
      years. Until one was sunk by a mine.

      The two sister ships (Britanic and Olympic) were
      slightly different as they had double hulls and
      more lifeboats.

      Remeber that ships didn't have watertight
      compartments at the time an as such had no
      failsafe mechanism in case of flooding. From that
      perspective the Titanic set a very important trend
      for ship safety
      matfud

    53. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as you are claiming inventions that were invented abroad by Brits that were living abroad, why not claim everything that American's have invented?

      After all, many American's are former Brits, or at least their ancesters were.

    54. Re:The problems of British industry by Cwaig · · Score: 1

      Add to this list:
      o credit cards
      o computers
      o VTOL aircraft
      o The modern toilet (and most of france has only recently caught up with that one...)
      o the english language (even if it got stolen and modified to make it incompatible so the american's could call it their own - hey! that's probably where Microsoft got the idea from).

      --
      +++ BASELINE REALITY FAILURE+++ +++ PLEASE REBOOT UNIVERSE +++
    55. Re:The problems of British industry by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      The English language was not stolen. It was a fork. English is Open Source. A fact which is evidenced by so many buggy patched versions seen here on Slashdot.
      I'll be the first to admit that a few "bugs" find their way into the English I use.

      Jonathan

    56. Re:The problems of British industry by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      no need to stop there:
      Airplane, steam engine, radio and printing press were invented by Russians first as well.
      And that is "Yablochkov".

    57. Re:The problems of British industry by panurge · · Score: 1

      Well, it's possible you are right about Titanic. I only have the word of an ex-captain RN who spent much of his career as a ship designer, and you doubtless have access to more reliable sources. But on nuclear reprocessing and Sellafield I beg to differ. To be honest, I can't be bothered to go into detail because your posting is illiterate, intemperate and doesn't look like it came from anyone qualified to comment. I just hope that you don't work at BNF, because if you do then I just hope the wind is blowing Eastwards.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    58. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the idea of nationality? It is the nationality of the inventor which maters, nothing else. If Tim Berners-Lee had taken citizenship of France or Switzerland then fine, it would be a French or a Swiss invention. If the "American" who invented something was not actually a naturalised American citizen at the time of the invention, then it cannot be an American invention. This isn't rocket science (German)

    59. Re:The problems of British industry by Snodgrass · · Score: 1

      John Logie Baird was merely one of a handful of people who claimed to invent the television.

      Swann was hardly the first to work on the electric light bulb

      mumble something mumble research mumble

      In the end, does it really matter? Your native country hardly determines your ability to invent something.

    60. Re:The problems of British industry by siliconowl · · Score: 1
      Actually, that distinction probably rests with the Scots.

      The Scots, who are British. So the point still stands.

      --
      (\/)atthew
    61. Re:The problems of British industry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      The Scots, who are British. So the point still stands.

      Most Scot's don't see themselves as British. The term "British" is only used when a Scot performs well at sport (or when an Englander does badly).

    62. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Fax Machine - Patented by Scottish mechanic Alexander Bain in 1843

      I really wish people wouldn't make this sort of mistake. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the British Isles. Scotland is a part of Britain, don't you know!

    63. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bulkhead when to the E deck, not the A deck. The stupid morons didnt want bulkheads in the "classy" part of the ship. So unsinkable? Sure, if the original design had been followed. But as things are, some artsy queer eye didnt want a bulkhead in first class.

    64. Re:The problems of British industry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Joseph Swann invented and demonstrated a practical lightbulb several years before Edison.

      Edison was mostly a patent thief, although he did have a few ideas of his own. If he had been around today, he would be hated more by the Slashdot crowd than SCO is.

    65. Re:The problems of British industry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Your native country hardly determines your ability to invent something.

      Not entirely true. Sure, for many ideas that is the case, but often funding and education are most important. Without these, the idea would have either never been thought of, or would have fizzled out due to lack of interest.

      That's why the USA is the worlds number one at warfare. Your government is willing through lots of money at research for weaponry, so most American inventions in the last 50 years are focused on the art of war. Even the internet falls under this umbrella.

    66. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They consider themselves Scottish not British, don't they?

    67. Re:The problems of British industry by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Funny

      Go tell a Scot that. Face to face.

      You guys DO have national health insurance, right?

    68. Re:The problems of British industry by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Tim Berners Lee

      Excuse you!

    69. Re:The problems of British industry by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 1
      • The decimal point!
      Maybe you Brits invented it, but now if you could actually use it instead of that annoying comma, that would be great.
    70. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, thomas edison, as you'll find if you do actual research instead of believing what you were taught in school, didn't invent a lot of the things he is credited for, like the light bulb.

      However, he was a brilliant businessman, and he turned a lot of fantastic, but basically useless, inventions into real products that people would buy.

    71. Re:The problems of British industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English language was a fork from German. So technically it's their invention.

      The vowel shift? French.

      The words? Latin [Italian].

      Having words from 18 different languages that all mean the same thing, and having the same term mean four completely different, and occasionally contradictory things [cleave, for instance, is its own antonym] -- English.

    72. Re:The problems of British industry by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Japanese could use teletypes to send messages. They just sent them as romanji. In fact, since they were charged by the word, Japanese buisnesses would send messages wherein each word was actually an entire sentence (Japanese is more or less written like this anyways, and the operators couldn't tell the difference). So actually the Japanese could send teletype messages at bargain prices. :)

    73. Re:The problems of British industry by k8to · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that a number of these inventions probably could be fairly ascribed to several people who contributed small advances which made the idea work.

      However, the incontrovertable fact is that toilet paper was invented by the chinese.

      --
      -josh
    74. Re:The problems of British industry by kiwicmc · · Score: 1

      Except in this case the inventor is a New Zealand and the company is also bankrolled by a New Zealander. That's the country that invented the Jet Boat (and split the atom but that's another story)

    75. Re:The problems of British industry by fcw · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the crossing time was irrelevant, nor did I say that no-one was using the service. I said that speed was the only thing in the hovercraft's favour.

      Compared with Hoverspeed's erstwhile service, ferries offer smoother crossings, larger capacity, greater comfort, and greater reliability of service in the face of bad weather. Unless you're in a real hurry, that's a lot to trade off for speed, and it was clearly too much for the hovercraft service to remain viable once another fast service appeared.

    76. Re:The problems of British industry by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Hard to call. OK, the man is British, but he was living in Switzerland and the company he was working for was Swiss. And the W3C has little to do with the UK. Seems a bit unfitting to call it a "British invention".

    77. Re:The problems of British industry by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "To be honest, I can't be bothered to go into detail "

      In other words you don't have any and are just banging your right-on enviromentalist drum. Kind of what I thought.

  26. commuting by boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I know of a guy who lives in Manassas VA and works in Maryland in some military installation across the Potomac River from quantico VA. If you look at a map, a commute by car would require a long semi-circular drive including the congested DC beltway. So he basically drives down VA 234, parks, then uses a jet ski to get across the river to get to work.

    So you can do this for a lot cheaper than buying some expensive freak-of-nature amphibious car! :)

    1. Re:commuting by boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I can just see him Jet-Skiing along the sidewalk now :D

  27. How long by Ugodown · · Score: 1

    How long until the River Thames gets congested with these amphibious boats? If there were lots of these boats trying to use the river, things would get messy quickly, especially because of the lack of laws. The river would get congested and be just as bad as the roads in no time. But it still would be fun!

    --
    --- to swing on the spiral...
  28. The Thames... by sbryant · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't bother buying one of these if I lived in London! The Thames (at least as far in as London) is a controlled river - all traffic is directed by the habour master (bit like 2D air traffic control), so you can't just zoom up and down the river as you wish. They also limit the amount of traffic, so you might end up having to wait for a slot. There'd be parking to pay for too. All in all, I think the London Underground is a better bet. Chances are you'd have to use it anyway to get from the river to your final destination. None of the other waterways around there are really big enough for such a vehicle.

    -- Steve

    1. Re:The Thames... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this will drive through the Underground too?! I've gotta get one!!!

  29. Unfortunate location for the press conference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I saw this on the BBC news last night.
    The funny thing was (which the presenter pointed out), was that the location they had used for showing off their new toy was in front of the Millenium Dome in London - a symbol of overspending development on something no one wants to use!
    Saying that, it does act like quite a good speed boat on water. The wheels fold up and the bottom of the car is shaped like a hull, so it does look quite like an average speed boat (although a rather cheap looking one) and lift up out the water at speed.

  30. Speed limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.

    Really?

    What's the speed limit for your average Alaskan lake?

    Is it high enough for all reasonable floatplanes to be able to take off?

    If so, is there really anything that might want to go faster than that?

  31. One for the ladies. by Ritontor · · Score: 0

    I know this is hardly the place to be mentioning things like this (come on, it's SLASHDOT) but imagine if you took a date out in this car! I reckon there's a few "and yeah, i got her wet!" jokes to be made here...

    --
    Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
  32. Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    With a 100mph top speed I think they're being a bit generous calling it a sports car. Even your
    average family box can go faster than that!

    1. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not legally, it can't.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Really, why not?

    3. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Because the speed limit's 70mph, of course.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    4. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by elvum · · Score: 1

      On racetracks it can.

    5. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      That rather depends on where you are, doesn't it?

      Even parts of the USA have had no speed limit during the day in recent years. Other countries are much more picky about who they let on the road, and can therefore let their citizens go faster.

      Illegally, of course, there are several stretches of interstate I've commuted on where speeds of all vehicles regularly average in the 90-95ish range.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Bertie · · Score: 1

      A sports car's not defined by top speed, it's defined by its character. In my book, a Lotus Elan's definitely a sports car even though it's not particularly quick, because it's light and nimble and very capable on a back road or a racetrack. However, a Bentley isn't, even though it goes like hell, because it's enormous and heavy and not really too clever at going round bends.

      This thing's just a converted Mazda MX-5. It's a sports car all right.

    7. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegally, of course, there are several stretches of interstate I've commuted on where speeds of all vehicles regularly average in the 90-95ish range.

      Yes, those streches are better know as "Texas"

    8. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Errr... you are remembering that this car doesn't have a roof, right?

      And, yes, in the UK, motorway speeds are more often in the 80-100mph range than under the 70mph limit. Still, top speeds over 100mph are pretty irrelevant - one of my 2 cars CAN do 140, the other over 150, but neither exceed 100mph more than a couple of times a year, and then only briefly. It is very rare to find road conditions in the UK where 100mph+ is a reasonable road speed.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  33. Nothing new here... move along :) by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've got one of these amphibious cars that tootles up and down our river every so often already...

    www.amphicar.com

    This "new" one is just one in a long line of press releases from marketing people who haven't looked into the history of the concept... mind you this new one does look cool...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Nothing new here... move along :) by horza · · Score: 1

      We've got one of these amphibious cars that tootles up and down our river every so often already... www.amphicar.com. This "new" one is just one in a long line of press releases from marketing people who haven't looked into the history of the concept... mind you this new one does look cool...

      I think the *new* bit is how fast it goes once in the water. What are the top speeds of the amphicar in and out of water?

      Phillip.

    2. Re:Nothing new here... move along :) by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      that website's got an original brochure for it. 12 mph water... 75 mph land. Anyway, UK waterways have got rigidly enforced speed limits. Even right down to 3 mph and enforced with radar guns... so that 30 mph gig would have trouble keeping down to the limit... :)

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  34. Amphibious Bleh! by hardticket · · Score: 1

    Venice has been doing this for years now, 'cept at a much slower, civilized rate.

  35. morons staying afloat vs. corepirate nazis.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..unprecedented evile/the walking dead. we're building a vessel that floats on almost any suBStance.

    that's right. you/we cannot afford the badtoll that lies ahead, should the greed/fear based georgewellian fuddite execrable fail to be neutralized.

    it's also corewrecked that. J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...

    truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.

    the recipe is:

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet. more breathing. seek others of non-agressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit.

    use key words/indexing to identify yourself/your products.

    the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.

    as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.

    EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your .asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.

    we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.

    pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.

    take care, we're here for you.

  36. Sinkage? by dolo666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amphibian cars have sunk before on several occasions. What's stopping this one? And what happens when the car rusts out? I'm guessing they have compensated for water usage, but I'm of the school that believes that boats are designed to be boats and cars are designed to be cars. Combining the two isn't going to make for a top-quality full-use vehicle. And plus...

    How many of you own boats? After even one season, they smell like mildew. You can use spray-nine to clean it, but it's still a boat smell, which is wonderful for a weekend or a couple weeks here and there, but in all honesty, do you want your car smelling like that? I can see some guy on a date...

    Stud: "Do you like my James Bond super-car? It goes 100mph on land and 30 in the water!"

    Date (pinching nose): "It smells like a zoo. Can I go home now?"

    1. Re:Sinkage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And what happens when the car rusts out?

      Like any car or any boat, I'm sure you have to maintain it.

      I hope that the hull isn't steel... but who knows.

  37. not such a new idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the idea is neat but far from being new... I
    remember one of my neighbours, in Geneva,
    Switzerland, in the 70s, who had an amphibian
    car (cannot possibly remember who the manufacturer
    could have been), no retractable wheels though,
    but propellers visible in the back, and of course
    two registrations (twas registered both as a car
    and as a boat...), which he used to avoid the
    already congested 'Pont du Mont Blanc'...

    will see if I can find more info,

  38. Like flying cars, but on water... by jade42 · · Score: 1

    I can't begin to think about the problems about putting large numbers of cars on water. Imagine having to wear life-jackets in order to go to work. Traffic accidents could lead to drownings. What about the up-keep associated with water vehicles? Also, who wants wet tires when you drive?

    --

    Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.
    1. Re:Like flying cars, but on water... by jezzgoodwin · · Score: 1

      Whereas traffic accidents on the road can't lead to death? I'd prefer to capsise and hang on to the hull of my carboat than have a head on collision with another car on land.

    2. Re:Like flying cars, but on water... by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      The major problem is that when you try to mix two very different things (IE cars and boats) you end up with something that costs a lot does both things badly.

      The things it takes to make something a good car, and the things you have to do to make a good boat are very different, so its not supprising that this thing costs a fortune and is probably not all that useful.

      But it is an interesting design

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
  39. Re:1st Annual "What's in my Ass?" Post by oshy · · Score: 0

    your head?

  40. Buy an Ultralight by peterdaly · · Score: 1

    Why not just buy an Untralight? Sure, then you need a a stretch of open space like a runway, but in many parts of the world that's much easier to find than a river that just happens to follow your commute.

    Put powered wheels on it and you've got a "flying car" (who needs a floating car?) if you're in this for the bragging rights.

    -Pete

  41. Oh, the humanity... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Somehow, whilst typing at your PC, you forgot to add the computer to your list.

    That noise you hear in the background is Charles Babbage spinning in his grave...

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Oh, the humanity... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      The ancient greeks were building mechanical "computers" long before Charles was around.

      OTOH, the silicon transistor, which makes modern electronics possible, is an American invention.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Oh, the humanity... by Placido · · Score: 1

      But I thought the British took the idea of the mechanical "computers" and created an electronic computer.

      Having silicon transistors instead of valves is simply a variation of design. Proof-of-concept and prototyping was performed at Bletchley.

      --

      Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
      Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
    3. Re:Oh, the humanity... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The problem with this kind of national dick-waving contest is that every invention builds on what came before, so where you chose to draw the line depends on who you want to claim the inventor was. A Brit may have invented the light bulb, for example, but an American made it last long enough to be practical. Who gets credit for the invention? Whomever you are trying to promote at the time, that's who. The Wright brothers had the first airplane that relied on the three-axis controls (pitch,roll,yaw), and thus could sustain a long flight, but the design of the basic wing shape necessary to attain lift was not theirs, nor was the engine that drove the thing.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  42. brits invent World Wide Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you honestly say that.

    I belive it was invented in a university (Berkely?) And started out as a network. Or the United States Military.

    Give me some proof there.

    -maddhatr

    1. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the name Tim Berners-Lee

    2. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1
      You're thinking of the ARPAnet (internet predecessor). Internet != WWW.

      Oh, sorry, people born after 1985 tend to think they're the same thing, don't they?

    3. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I see AOL links to Slashdot now.

      World Wide Web is not the same thing as Internet HTTP/HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in the early 90's.

      While we're on the subject, a Brit also co-invented the concept of packet switching while working for the Post Office at the same time as it was invented at RAND in the U.S

    4. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you honestly say that.

      Because it's true? But of course everything must be invented by an American unless proof is provided.

      You're an idiot.

    5. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by uradu · · Score: 1

      > HTTP/HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in the early 90's.

      Yes, which would make it a Swiss and/or French development, depending on which part of the complex he was taking a crap in when he thought of it. Otherwise a goodly number of American inventions and developments should be considered German, Chinese and Russian.

    6. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wouldn't. The man who invented was British; how does the place in which is was invented have anything to do with it? Tim Berners-Lee wrote the first server & client as part of his research at CERN, but it was not an official CERN project.

      Otherwise a goodly number of American inventions and developments should be considered German, Chinese and Russian.

      Quite rightly. For example the Atomic Bomb was invented and developed mostly by German and Hungarian scientists. The United States just provided the manpower and materials.

    7. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by simong · · Score: 1

      Pshaw. He was British, it came out of his head, so the invention was British. And besides, we know that BT invented hyperlinks.

    8. Re:brits invent World Wide Web? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because it's true? But of course everything must be invented by an American unless proof is provided. You're an idiot.

      He's not an idiot. It's just the way everyone's educational system works. Lot's of flag-waving and chants of "we are the best". Go and ask various people from Britain, Japan, USA and Cuba how WW2 or the Cuban missile crisis started, and you'll get entirely different answers from each. No one wants to admit they are at fault, or that they didn't think of something first.

      Propaganda begins in the first grade. The catholics have know this for centuries.

  43. Observations: by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First - they make a big deal about how this car can "go over 100MPH on land". SO WHAT! Sitting in my garage I have a car that can go over 130MPH - more if I pull the civilian chip from the engine and put a cop chip in.

    Second - is the Thames as polluted as some of the other major rivers near population centers (sorry, centres)? If so, then I damn sure wouldn't want to go hotrodding around on it in an open boat - talk about your shitty experiences!

    Third - for the cost of this vehicle, I can stop working for several years, and not have to commute at all. Alternatively, I can work somewhere that isn't as crowded, and not have to deal with the commute. I could also buy a damn fine car, a damn fine boat, a damn fine boat trailer for the boat, a damn fine truck to tow the boat trailer, and probably still have money left over for a damn fine camper for the damn fine truck to stay in.

    This vehicle seems to be target to the same crowd as the H2 Hummer is - folks with far more money than common sense.

    1. Re:Observations: by khaine · · Score: 1

      Second - is the Thames as polluted as some of the other major rivers near population centers (sorry, centres)? If so, then I damn sure wouldn't want to go hotrodding around on it in an open boat - talk about your shitty experiences!

      These days the Thames is one of the cleanest rivers in Europe and is home to a large number of pollution sensitive species such as salmon and crayfish.

  44. Cue /. stock joke by khaine · · Score: 1

    I'll only be impressed when it flies.

    (sorry, couldn't resist that one) ;-)

  45. Terrorist Plot! by peterdaly · · Score: 1

    Isn't Aquada the group Bin Laden runs? Maybe this is really for fast getaways over land or sea? Maybe this is an improvement on the exposives under a rubber raft concept.

    Hmmm...

    -Pete

  46. Sounds Like a Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang prototype by GSpot · · Score: 0

    All it needs is a pair of wings.

  47. I'm pretty sure the inventors are US based by ukgod · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just commenting on all those jovial "crazy brits" postings. Mr Alan Gibbs is from New Zealand, although he was in partnership with a Brit, Neil Jenkins, and got Lotus (UK) to do some feasibility studies. The concept work was done by Eurotech and MSX in Detroit, USA. The vehicle is being built in the UK because we have a good engineering record and a lot of expertise in low volume car manufacture and "racing" (especially F1) cars.

    1. Re:I'm pretty sure the inventors are US based by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Indycars also built in the UK?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:I'm pretty sure the inventors are US based by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Alan Gibbs was working on prototypes in NZ until 1995 when he left. Not sure where he went from there. I don't think the inventors are solely based in any particlular country.

  48. well i got to ask by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 0

    An amphibious car is a neat idea. Its neither new or novel, but a rehash of 60 year old technology in modern guise. I wonder what type of fuel efficiency this thing gets? Is its powerplant based on 60 year old technology as well? Hey maybe if they could get it to fly as well. THAT would be nice..

  49. If you are bothered by launch fees ... by Clansman · · Score: 1

    ... then you are unlikely to buy a car for 150k methinks.

  50. There's a Simpsons quote here somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but damned if I can remember what it is. It's from the episode that opens with a younger Abe watching a newsreel about a booming Springfield...possibly the one where Burns opens the Casino. The newsreel mentions a factory that makes amphibious cars, showing them driving out of the factory straight into the water. Only quote I remember is "Everyone in town wears Springfield Galoshes!"

  51. Another video by logic-gate · · Score: 3, Informative

    Longer video available here [nzoom.com]

  52. Re:The problems of British industry... come on! by o'reor · · Score: 1
    LOL ! Take a look at France, too:
    • The airtrain (Aerotrain)
    • Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle
    • Nuclear waste reprocessing, heh ? What about SuperPhenix?
    • Oh, yeah, Concorde as well, France was so proud about it
    • The infamous "ligne Maginot"
    • Minitel, so successful in France, but not to be found anywhere else
    • "La 5eme Republique" which brought the country on the verge of chaos on 2002-04-21
    I could go on like this...
    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  53. Wakeboard behind... by inblosam · · Score: 1

    The aquada website says it is powerful enough to pull a water skiier. The question is, does it have the fittings for a tow rope? Now THAT would be a blast. No more towing boats with your SUV.

  54. Millionaires care about urban congestion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can afford this care what are you going to use it for? Driving to and from cocktail parties and museum openings? I didn't know urban congestion was such a problem for the superrich. Why don't they just get a helicopter instead?

  55. solving congestion by mblase · · Score: 1

    The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion.

    Well, certainly. After getting that much saline seaspray in your nose every weekday morning, you'll never have to complain about congestion again. Taxicabs could even market it as a remedy during the flu season.

  56. Hovercraft ... by Clansman · · Score: 1
    Hovercraft are in widespread use by Navies and Marine forces worldwide, actually. Even the US Navy, which has some genuine monsters on it's books.

    Picture of an LCAC here including a short .mov of one in action.

  57. To much money by thbigr · · Score: 1

    Wow, people with to much money start strange projects. What ever happened to just blowing it on, well, blow?

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  58. rush hour pileups by yetanothertechie · · Score: 1, Funny

    Great, now not only will people have to worry about accidents during rush hour, but there's the added excitement of the possibility of drowning.

    Seriously though, there are specific rules regarding the use of waterways, and there are enough problems with boaters who are ignorant of them. The last thing needed is a bunch of harried commuters with no clue about the rules and rights of way of navigation on the water.

    --
    Facts are stubborn things.
  59. Let's hope- by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    it has better rust proofing than the last water-capable car, the Amphicar, produced in the 60s IIRC. It had a rather nasty tendency to rust and then sink when introduced to the water...of course, this IS a British car, and after owning several (TVR, which is in large part Fibreglas, MGB, which is in large part rust) I would think twice about getting near any body of water with this new one.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  60. Waterskiing by Vexar · · Score: 1

    Okay, maybe this isn't as obvious, but shouldn't the Aquada, which is purported to tow water-skiers have some sort of monstrously tall, bookshelf of an air foil on the back, that doubles as a pull bar for waterskiing ropes? They've been on other makes for years now. Just watch any recent car-oriented movie, and you'll likely see one.

  61. In Gotham City.... by ngyahloon · · Score: 2, Funny

    .....we called it the bat mobile:)

    --
    Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!
  62. Re:"the Thames river" by chapmanvfx · · Score: 1

    I suppose you want us to also pronounce it like 'Temms' rather than how it is spelt? ;)

  63. The wonderful power of PR by pork_spies · · Score: 1, Troll

    This garbage invention (how many people are really going to want to use it?) got wall to wall coverage in the British media yesterday - even though they made all these ludicrous and bogus claims (eg Thames has no speed limit).

    You have to wonder whether they were giving the hacks loadsa free drinks or something.

    Predictably just about every report mentioned James Bond - the whole thing fed into the British sense of themselves as pluky amateurs (as James Bond surely is).

    Absolutely crap.

  64. complexity as a solution for congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion.

    Relief from congestion -- that's how many alternative-transport companies have tried to get their first customers over the years. The personal helicopter dreamers have the same pitch. And every alternative transportation device turns out to need lots of room to maneuver, so that if they actually succeeded there would be unbelievable congestion in whatever medium they fly/float/submerge in. And they usually are prohibitively complex and fuel-thirsty. Check out this pig.

  65. Good ways by nnnneedles · · Score: 2, Funny
    The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion.

    Maybe, it's just a good way to avoid profit.

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  66. This takes me back... by C+A+S+S+I+E+L · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In London in the swinging '60's, it was hard to spend more than a week or two without encountering an Amphicar somewhere on the road. This new product is certainly a lot less ugly.

  67. This sound like another impractical car idea by Chromal · · Score: 1

    This makes as little sense as the flying car. It sounds good until you realize that any large number of these running around would be a disaster. There'd be a car boat at the bottom of some river and another car plane would nosedive into the earth or through somebody's ceiling every week.

    I guess this would make living on an inland island's seclusion more convienient...

  68. Australian Rivers by alpha713 · · Score: 1

    While it may not be possible to implement this car/boat in all locations, I have to think that people living near smaller cities that exist along rivers, like the Murray River in Australia would benefit from the ability to convert from boat to car and vice versa. Venice Italy is another possible example, only because I just watch the italian job, but surely there are plenty of cities that could benefit from an invention such as this.

  69. Re:"the Thames river" by rpjs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course.

    It is our language, after all.

    (my fiancee is both American and a linguist, so you can imagine how well that line goes down when I come out with it at home...)

  70. Re:"the Thames river" by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    You better do as we say, or we'll throw you in it!

  71. To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't really blame "SuperBanana (662181)" for believing what he stated. I was taught the same thing in gradeschool. (well, at least about the lightbulb and TV)

    1. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True... lets face it, history is written by those writing the text-books. At the same time, though, you can see why it is rather irrtating from this side of the pond :-)

      --
      MW

  72. Convertible? Have you ever seen a speedboat? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    I don't think I've ever seen one with a roof.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  73. Poor access by clintp · · Score: 1

    ...opinion from a Michigander, where you're never more than 3 miles from a natural lake or river anywhere in the state: This is the most useless, stupid idea I've seen in a while.

    I'm not sure about the UK, but over here rivers aren't usually given to any kind of easy access. In urban areas factories, docks, and various other kinds of buildings litter the shorelines. In more rural settings, rivers are bordered by swamps, ravines, and steep banks.

    On the other hand, *lakes* people go well out of their way to build access ramps to. Then again, if you've got a water-car on a lake...your navigation options are somewhat limited.

    And thinking of *driving* out of that river or lake over the embankment across a field to get back to the road? Think again. Just whose land are you driving across to bridge the gap? Private land? The owner'll have your head on a plate for eroding the bank and potentially causing floods. Your own land? If you own the land, what's the point of all this anyway? Public land? The first Department of Natural Resources officer that catches your driving on state land away from a trail will jail you, impound your car, and subject you to severe fines.

    Speaking of the DNR, the first time the car leaves an oil slick (or transmission fluid, grease, brake fluid, engine coolant) in the water or on the bank -- public or private land -- you'll start piling up fines that make the price of the car look small by comparison.

    I'll just wait for my flying car, thank you.

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  74. Glad to hear it by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    OK, then point #2 is a non-issue. I'm glad to hear that the Thames is clean - I am a quarter of the world away, so I have no direct experience with it.

  75. But those in the UK will know...... by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

    This thing will only be driven by bloody hairdressers at the best of times due to its remarkable resemblance to a Mazda MX5.

    Only a bloke would drive a gadget car like this so we think that it should look more like a lotus, tvr or land rover.

    WARNING: This joke will not work on the continental States.

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    1. Re:But those in the UK will know...... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      WARNING: This joke will not work on the continental States

      No, our hairdressers drive Miatas too. Especially the bloke hairdressers.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:But those in the UK will know...... by British · · Score: 1

      Gee it only seemed like yesteryear that my car(Triumph Spitfire) was unfairly branded as the "hairdressers car".

    3. Re:But those in the UK will know...... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      I'd rather push my MG then drive a Triumph.

      Then again, I usually did.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  76. more like no speed limits on any water in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are essentially no speed limits on any bodies of water in Texas and I suspect that's true in general throughout most of the country. Clearly there are restrictions around structures and in congested areas. In Texas you can operate a boat without any licence or training and can do so at 100 mph on inland lakes if you please. Not bragging about that, BTW.

    The original poster is an idiot.

  77. Congestion beater? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    The only congestion it will remove is in your bank account.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  78. I think I'll park it next to my Segway by uradu · · Score: 0

    Maybe they'll be friends.

    1. Re:I think I'll park it next to my Segway by TheSync · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every morning, I see a disabled lady using her Segway to go to and from the a Washington, DC rail station. Sometimes when I'm waiting for a train and reading, I'll hear a quiet whizzing sound, look up, and she just went right by me! It makes Segways less of a joke to me.

    2. Re:I think I'll park it next to my Segway by uradu · · Score: 1

      > It makes Segways less of a joke to me.

      I don't find that particular use funny either. In fact Kamen has had some great designs in the disability arena. But that's not how he marketed the Segway: it was supposed to be this great transportation paradigm-shifting phenomenon around which future cities would be built. Puh-lease! Right now it's almost exclusively a yuppie toy.

    3. Re:I think I'll park it next to my Segway by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Thats a bit of a misstatement. Kamen didn't really market the Segway. Kamen really didn't say anything at all about it. The buzz about the Segway built up in the absence of any official information on it.

      If you want to see something really cool that Kamen invented, check out his wheelchairs.

    4. Re:I think I'll park it next to my Segway by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Kamen really didn't say anything at all about it.

      Hah! Now THAT'S a misstatement. How many talkshows did he demonstrate it on again, going on about how it's going to change urban lifestyle?

      > check out his wheelchairs.

      That's what I was talking about. The new model that rises on two wheels to provide access to high shelves and can tackle stairs is quite amazing. Given their price I just don't know how popular they will become.

  79. More Pictures... by cdneng2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a Yahoo slideshow of the vehicle being driven on and off the Thames, here.

  80. Remember the Amphicar by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

    The Amphicar was an early example of the amphibious car. I think it was a product of the Netherlands, but I'm not sure. Was available in the 1960's, and was slow and underpowered. If you saw one on the street you could look under the back bumper and see the propellers. I did a quick Google on amphicar and found a bunch of sites, including this one.

    --
    No sig? Sigh...
    1. Re:Remember the Amphicar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German Made.
      Here's a picture of the factory floor in Berlin, Germany.
      Here's six of them in a race. Looks like they are kicking up quite a wake!

  81. Another problem. by AlecC · · Score: 2, Funny

    As everybody knows, the UK drives on the left. Well, on the roads it does; on the rivers it drives on the right. So if this thing is going down a flooded road (a good reason to buy it), which side should it drive on? Every time the wheels float off or touch ground, it should change sides. And if, on boar mode, it meets (say) an agricultural tractor going the other way, you have a free fender bender right there.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    1. Re:Another problem. by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      +1, Funny

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    2. Re:Another problem. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      if, on boar mode it meets (say) an agricultural tractor going the other way
      It would clearly be a road hog.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  82. Made for Washington, DC by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DC traffic is horrible, and the slow rebuilding of the Wilson Bridge across the Potomac is making is even worse.

    On the other hand, DC has many public marinas on the Potomac with boat ramps. There is one in Georgetown, one near National Airport, two in Alexandria, and a few in southern PG county.

  83. Also... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you want to be jumping a convertable car off a ramp into the water.

  84. hardly an invention at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just another protocol following the examples of many before it. More like an evolution rather than an invention.

    If www is worth arguing about as a British "invention" you've already lost the argument.

    1. Re:hardly an invention at all by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      More like an evolution rather than an invention.

      Excuse me? Can you say "killer app"? Would you have the net at home, or more importantly, would your non-geek friends have it if it wasn't for WWW?

      If www is worth arguing about as a British "invention" you've already lost the argument.

      Oh, we can go back further than that. Packet switching, the basis of TCP, was invented in the UK. The US funded Arpanet is "just another protocol following the examples of many before it.".

      But we are getting silly now. We could tribute the entire thing to Volta, you want to go back far enough!!

  85. Most US waterways have no speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Speedlimits are the exception on US waters. There are lots of no-wake zones. Some parts of the ICW have speed limits. And everywhere, you're responsible for the damage your wake causes, and generally for operating the vessel safely. But on most waters, there aren't speed limits per se.

    1. Re:Most US waterways have no speed limit by tkg · · Score: 1

      Speed limits wouldn't be the only issue in the US. In the US (perhaps in other countries as well) you have to display your watercraft registration numbers plainly on the side of the craft. Who wants a registration number painted in large block lettering on the front fenders of their car? Add to that a large hood ornament with a green light on one side and a red one on the other and your expensive sports car suddenly looks much less cool. I don't know if exceptions would be made for multipurpose vehicles since none are in wide use here( there have been a few concept cars in the past), but the state I live in would likey fine you the minute you drove into the water with one of these.

  86. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could just see myself in one of these. I could go trolling for bream on the way home from work :-)

  87. Only the British . . . by mr_luc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Only the British would *admit* to inventing Viagra.

    Here, in the US, we have commercials for it, but nobody *needs* to use it, because we have enormous turgid 12-cylinder American penises that get 3mpg and are not in compliance with the Kyoto accord.

  88. Where're the flying cars? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

    Who cares? Where are the flying cars that we were promised to get in the 21st Century?

    --
    i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    1. Re:Where're the flying cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  89. Re:1st Annual "What's in my Ass?" Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Car keys.

  90. What a great idea! by vgaphil · · Score: 1

    Now that we have polluted the air lets get to work on polluting the water!

    --
    A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
  91. It will never catch on... by !Xabbu · · Score: 1

    The last amphibious cars where too expensive.. these companies seem to be working on the idea that people will pay extra for this... they won't... they didn't the first time around. If they want it to work.. they need to get an automaker to build it in mass quantities so it can be priced affordably. That would be an approx. $350,000 CDN car. I don't even think that our upper class would shell out more then half a million for a toy that is no more then a fad in its current state.

    --

    - Jimbob
  92. Re:more like no speed limits on any water in the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have fun with that, and I expect we won't see any more posts like this one because you will die.

    At least I HOPE natural selection will kill you off cause you are an even bigger idiot than the original poster.

  93. Beats Urban Congestion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, that's funny, I thought that walking, bicycling, mass transit and proper urban planning were solutions to urban congestion.

  94. Interesting trend? by Pearte · · Score: 1

    Take a look at the TAero from aerospectives.

    --
    Uh ...
  95. Um... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "...it's a good way to avoid congestion..."

    Are there many people who can afford $300,000 cars who spend a lot of time fighting commuter traffic jams?

    --
    -Styopa
  96. Likewise Venice by kupci · · Score: 1
    It takes about one ski-boat to cause problems with an 8.

    The water taxi/bus system in Venice is quite fantastic. They even have free gondolas to get across certain parts of the canals where there aren't bridges. Now that's the way to travel!

    Pitching this amphib as a way to solve London's travel problems is ridiculous, when they already have some good solutions (alternate driving days, blocking off certain parts of city from cars, etc).

  97. And we thought Segway buyers were loonies. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Kinda makes a $4K scooter look pretty sensible, eh?

    99.9999999% of the people in the world will never buy one of these - but I'll buy a Segway when it gets down to the price of a very very good bicycle or a low-end mini-cruiser (GS 250 / Virago 250) i.e. under $2900...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  98. Jetskis by kupci · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Wisconsin they are considering requiring some sort of license for Jetskiers. They comprise 1% of the watercraft yet are involved in somewhere around 30-40% of the water accidents.

  99. been done.. by ryan76 · · Score: 1

    Didn't James Bond or Batman have one of these?

    --
    http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
  100. Re:more like no speed limits on any water in the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess anything goes in Texas, huh? ;)

    The original poster was not an idiot, he was just making a really dumb joke that didn't make any sense. We've all been that sometimes, I guess. Am I right?

  101. Only for the first ones... by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

    > The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion."

    Only for the first ones...
    And only for a short time...

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  102. Insightful?!? by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    > Right... 'Cause all normal power boats have enclosed tops...

    This is insightful? Most normal power boats sit the pilot six feet above the waterline. Is the same true of this craft? To be insightful, you'd need to compare this craft to a johnboat going at 30 MPH.

    Insightful, indeed.

    Virg

  103. Re:more like no speed limits on any water in the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy there, big fella. Sounds like you've got some ego problems. Or at least some issues with insulting people.

    "I hope natural selection kills you." Is that what passes for an insult these days? Well, you sure do sound slick, I gotta tell you.... Good one!

    Except not.

    Remember. Love thy neighbor.

  104. Don't make me come back there! by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Quiet! I don't care who was touching who! Don't make me come back there! Quiet Down! This is Mutiny! Mr. Spencer, see them all hanged! Ahh the family road/water trip

    What sort of maritime law applies once you go in the water? What sort of strange "Boat-on-dry-land" laws exist in the UK (that once might have applied to dry dock, but might apply to the car)

    --
    meh
  105. British engineering??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they're priding themselves too much.
    Whereas they made one car, us Cubans can make
    anything into an amphibious car. :-P.

  106. carpool by gregeth · · Score: 1

    Just wait until we see carpool lanes on lakes and rivers. :) "Two or more passengers only in this lane"..."Violators will be sunk". Gives a whole new meaning to the pool in carpool.

  107. End Congestion!? by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    At 150,000 quid, it would certainly end any congestion in both my wallet and my bank account. I guess if you forced everyone to use this or a bus, it would certainly end road congestion since most of us would have to go back to public transportation.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  108. Why Not? by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if you're serious about this or not, so I'll take the serious tack in addressing it:

    1.) Control: Driving an ultralight aircraft is not for the timid, or the unpracticed. It's a very dangerous vehicle, and failure in control is very often fatal. Not so with a ground vehicle. I can't imagine what it'd be like trying to fly an ultralight near a city, but let's just say I wouldn't want to be piloting it. The wind currents alone would be a complete nightmare. It's also virtually impossible to fly an ultralight in inclement weather, so you'd need some other way to get to work in rain or snow.

    2.) Safety: Not only is an ultralight hard to handle, in the case of mechanical failure, you've got a rough ride to the ground in the best of circumstances. If your car stalls, you roll to a stop. Any mechanical failure other than engine trouble is likely to cause an ultralight to fall (think broken wing strut or a thrown propeller, or a landing wheel gone flat that'll cause a wreck when you touch down).

    3.) Economy: In the best conditions (always flying with the wind, being able to fly straight to your destination instead of routing around flight lanes and airports), ultralights are not very fuel-economical. Most times, that's not the issue, since people fly these things for recreation, but it wouldn't save you much in operating costs to fly to work every day. This is not to mention that the insurance bill would be astronomical.

    4.) Immobility: You can only take it from airstrip to airstrip. Your comment about powered wheels is only feasible if you invent some mechanism for removing and stowing the wings, since they'd be too wide for most motorways, and if you drove at the speed of traffic you'd lift off the road. At that point, you'd essentially be commuting on a busy roadway in a go-cart, which goes back to the safety issue, since it's got to be light to fly, and light craft fare very badly in fender-benders.

    So, at this point, ground vehicles are it.

    Virg

  109. Forget the Thames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would sure make a commute across the SF Bay a lot nicer.

  110. Sunbeam the car of tomorrow, yesterday! by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

    Amphibious cars are old hat, no one wanted them 30 years ago and no one wants them now (well, no one except for Sunbeam enthusiasts).

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  111. 235k by blunte · · Score: 1

    If you can afford to spend 235k on a vehicle, you can afford to travel when the roads aren't as crowded.

    This is just a novel toy.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  112. Sports car? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It has a top speed of 100mph and it's got to be lugging around a bunch of extra weight for this boat shit. It might look like a sports car, but I bet it drives like a boat. Er, on land, I mean.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  113. That's pretty cool, but uh... by sackeri · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Cubans beat them to it.

  114. Right of Way? by Sumbody · · Score: 1

    I don't see any red/green navlights to indicate unambiguoiusly who has the right of way when more than 1 of these vessels is present on the water. That means either there is only going to be one of these things, or that the operators will simply drive without regard to public safety, just like land-based sports cars. Do they have to turn on their blinkers when coming about? Can their seat cushion be used for a Personal Floatation Device[tm]? Boy, does this thing ever stretch the envilope.

  115. PLA in charge of the Thames? by siskbc · · Score: 2, Funny
    Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.

    Damn, that was stupid putting the PLA in charge. What, do they blow you up for speeding? Maybe have Arafat look at you all twitchy if you turn without signalling out there? Small wonder Britain has no amphibious cars.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:PLA in charge of the Thames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's PLO and your joke sucks. Assclown...

    2. Re:PLA in charge of the Thames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's PLO and your joke sucks. Assclown...

      That was the joke. Asshat.

  116. Dutton Mariner & Commander by Funky+M · · Score: 1

    What about the Dutton Mariner and Commander? Also known as "the world's first mass produced amphibious vehicle". Does 5.4 knots, and Tim Dutton (if I remember correctly) has also driven one over the English Channel.

    -Funky M

  117. How much does it pollute the water? (no text) by Dwonis · · Score: 1

    No text.

  118. Want to avoid congestion? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Get a bicycle!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  119. How big is the wake? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Anybody know how big a wake this thing produces? This is a big issue, the Stena HSS had to have a speed limit imposed on it in Belfast Lough because the fishing boats in the nearby villages were getting buffetted about against their moorings and damaged. Same for Loch Ryan. As far as I know, Stena are thinking about sailing to Cairnryan instead of Stranraer now because of this. The speed limit in the Loch is cutting the competitive edge that the HSS has over the slow boats.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:How big is the wake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wghat sort of a name is fianna fail man? Does it mean you are available for bribery and corruption, or are a retired gun runner?

    2. Re:How big is the wake? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Beats the hell out of "Anonymous Coward."

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  120. "good way to avoid congestion" by arget · · Score: 1

    Sure, because so many major commuting routes are tied by waterways...

    Neat, yes. Useful, no.

  121. boat of car by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


    I would only get one of these if the Theme From Spy Hunter (aka "Peter Gunn") played constantly as I drove it.

  122. Does it look like... by Lord+of+the+Fries · · Score: 1

    ...a Lotus Esprit?

    If I buy one, will I meet the company's secretrary, Miss Moneypenny?

    Does it come with the babes too?

    --
    One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
  123. Won't help where it's needed... L.A. by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    The Los Angeles River is paved for most of its length and dry for most of the year.

    I mean, c'mon, didn't these guys ever see the drag race scene from Grease?

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  124. Alternative cars by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Nah forget it, they'll just put cameras all over the river now! I want an electric car, they dont have to pay the charge, but why are they all so ugly? More people would buy alternative cars if they wernt all designed by ponces, they look worse than smart cars!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  125. Good, but for different reasons... by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

    I like the sound of this car, but for different reasons. It would totally suck as a way to avoid congestion (unless both your house and your office are on the riverbank and have convenient moorings you'll have to transition from car to boat and back to car again, and still use the roads, and if you're travelling a long way on the river the speed isn't /that/ great [30mph is good for a boat but slow by commuter standards]) but would be an awesome piece of kit for climbers wanting to reach inaccessible sea cliffs without the hassle of towing a RIB on a trailer, or people wanting to indulge in a spot of sea fishing, or who live in the Hebrides.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  126. heheheh new buzz word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the new buzzword will be... RIVER RAGE

  127. British Built? by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    "It's a genuine amphibian which has been an international project, but it's British engineering which has made it possible."

    British Engineering...Meaning you'll eventually have to replace the engine with one that actually works, the body panels will be rusted through within 2 years, and the electrical system will start activating the brake-lights when you start the windshield wipers within 6 months.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  128. If only there... by johnwyles · · Score: 1

    ...were more bodies of water along side the freeways I'd go out and buy one of these to avoid the hell of my morning commute.

    --
    [[ the only 15 letter word that is spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable: it may soon be, however. ]]
  129. don't get yer hopes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they will be regulated to death in no time by well intentioned yet,misguided evironmentalists.

  130. Picture someone ... by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

    ... who buys one of these getting in an accident, bending a door slightly. Ten minutes later they drive into the river without thinking and sink their car. Then if it's in the US, they sue the manufacturer for not telling them they couldn't do it. The company, of course, never thought someone would be that stupid so they are forced to notify everyone in the future.

    Then the whole story gets on This is True and I get to laugh at them.

    --

    - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    1. Re:Picture someone ... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      There are no doors.

  131. Now I can avoid the ferry to Martha's Vineyard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woohoo! This rocks. Or I could head out to Provincetown in a half hour or so.. nice nice.

    1. Re:Now I can avoid the ferry to Martha's Vineyard by ekc · · Score: 0

      I live near the Thousand Islands myself. My dream vehicle used to be a personal hovercraft, but now I'm not so sure. I could have a lot of fun with that car!

      -Ted

  132. Don't forget to close the valves! by core+plexus · · Score: 1
    One day in a park in El Paso, Tx., the Army wanted to show off some amphib capabilities of various vehicles. I forget what the first vehicle in was, but it promptly sank. There were hundreds of civilians, and lots of brass there. The show was canceled right then. Seems someone forgot to check a plug and seal in the bottom.

    Here in Alaska there are a lot of what I've heard referred to as SUSVEE, tracked amphibious troop carrier. That's what I want. Snowmachine, road rig, off-road rig, and amphib, too!

    -cp-

  133. Driver's license by Pflipp · · Score: 1

    Accidentally, just today I've learned that it takes an extra license for the water part, as you need a shipper's license (or whaddayacallit) if you go > 20 km/ h on a motorized boat.

    So you need two licenses to drive one car!

    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
  134. Middle seat by bencvt · · Score: 1
    Anyone notice how the driver's seat is in the middle? Maybe they had to make it that way to make it a legal boat, or something.

    But I'd like to see that feature in a regular car, too. Nicer view for me when I'm driving, no side seat drivers allowed, and plenty room for passengers in the back to stretch their feet.

  135. It could almost have been the US by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    I was listening to the inventor (or at least the guy whose main idea it was) speaking on the radio this morning. He's actually a New Zealander, and initially went to Detroit to consult various auto engineers about his ideas. After a certain point though, he couldn't find the right mix of experience and qualifications in the USA for what he was trying to do. That's how he ended up going to the UK to develop and build the thing.

  136. There's a far cheaper option.. by jechonias · · Score: 0

    The car was built by a new zealander, but its way too expensive.

    Check out some of our cheaper atv's which second hand retail for about $6000 NZD.

    http://www.argo-atv.co.nz/

    jech.

  137. Done a LONG time ago... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to find a link to any photogrpahic evidence, but I clearly remember watching a show on the History Channel which showed several (functioning) amphibious cars which dated back to the early 50s (several were converted chevys and fords).

    The idea is nothing new. It's been tried and failed many times. A huge problem is fuel economy, practicality, and above all else, rust. The cars usually didn't last more than a few years.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Done a LONG time ago... by EaTiN+cOfFeE+bEaNs · · Score: 1

      I saw this on the news a few days ago. According to the story, older amphibious cars could only 6 or 7mph on the water, but this one, as stated in the article, can reach 30. It's also a convertible to boot. =)

      --
      No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
  138. GTA3 by icleprechauns · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of one of the psuedo-ads in GTAIII: "and in amphibious mode...it can cross rivers. So far I've only hit a few puddles, but it's good to know it's there"

    Why would you ever need an amphibious car?

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  139. Riceboys look out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long till I can get that body kit for /my/ miata? :)

  140. Germans did it first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a little car that did that from Germany in the late 50's? I saw one once in person, and I didn't buy it because the rubber gaskets around the doors were affected by the smog in Southern California, and would not be water-tight anymore. This thing had a propeller in the back, here is a website with pictures.

  141. The real question... by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    So, yes, I could drive this car to my nearest public slipway (In Woolwich), drive it into the river and bash the waves at 30mph, drive out at Richmond and drive the rest of the way to work.

    But can this get you around all those central district congestion-cams without having to pay a fee?

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  142. Hovercraft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the price is too high, no? why don't try a hovercraft. it suppose to be out on August 2003, but no news yet. site:

    http://www.gimbalcraft.com/html/photos.html

    it can be use on land and water. with the ability to brake on speed (i don't know whether this is true or not, but that is what i found on the website)

  143. 50 mile range?? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    According to the BBC News article the Aquada "Has a range of 50 miles".

    50 miles?!? What does it have, a 3 gallon gas tank? I couldn't find that information on the Aquada website, I sure hope it's a misprint and a zero is missing, otherwise at that "100 miles top speed" you'd be out of gas in 30 minutes :-/

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  144. X5 is actually built in the U.S. by tarp · · Score: 1

    The X5 is actually built in... Tennessee.. or perhaps it was Kentucky.

    Regardless, the X5 sold in the U.S. is NOT built in Germany, it's built in the U.S.A.