A whole discussion on cars ................. this is where Hasbeen, ttbn, individual, mhaze, Bazz, and all of the other usual suspect get to strut their stuff. This is where they really excel.

I just can't wait until they start discussing football, barbeques, and guns. It doesn't get any better. All makes sense now why they like excluding educated and smart people from their discussions.

Issy,

"Motor spot doesn't come anywhere near football etc., as a generator of pollution."

Being an evidence based old cock as you are, always demanding links etc from others, including me, how about the evidence Issy to back up your claim, a link will do, tonnes/hours or what ever they measure pollution of that kind in at footy matches.
Football, your finding, is that restricted to the round ball only, or do you have stats across all codes of football. I'm very interested in your evidence. I'll keep calling for it until you provide such evidence. Otherwise you earn your first PORKY AWARD for 2020.

discussing football,
Mr Opinion,
now you're becoming offensive linking me with that mugs game !

Paul,

"Motor spot doesn't come anywhere near football etc., as a generator of pollution."

Simply because it doesn't generate the same number of spectators, very many of whom drive their cars or use other methods of pollution generating travel.

The predecessors of the Greens tried way back in the 1970s to push for a curb on motor sport because of the pollution and the answer was the same back then, football caused more pollution.

No references needed, just use common sense.

When I was motor racing most meetings attracted no more than 10,000 spectators. A Sheffield shield cricket match, which attracts 5 people & a dog today, would have 20,000 for each of 5 days. Which burnt more fuel?

Unless mine was the feature class for the meeting, I would burn no more than 7 gallons of ave gas for the weekend. Even if mine was the major event I would burn no more than 12 gallons.

What a big deal. The people at Bondi & Manly beaches would have burnt more getting to the beach than the average motor race meeting & the spectators.

Aidan, aportioning blame for an accident to those at fault is meant to do exactly that, so they hopefully have learned a valuable life/driving lesson, hopefully never to be repeated again.
What the hell are you?
Some kind of PC freak!
It is the ONLY base for decision making.
You studied what at uni?
If this is the type of insipid resolve taught at uni, you have just confirmed what we have always suspected, anything you may wish to say hence forth will be considered moot.
Now let ME educate you, not some academic loser who probably catches public transport or rides a bike to uni.
A driver must always be vigilant, not only because he is driving a two tonne structure at a speed which cannot be arrested easily or quickly.
Given that, his responsibility is on the road and what happens ON THE ROAD.
It is not the drivers responsibility to look at pedestrians as well, until they give him cause to notice them.
You cannot be so stupid as to expect, with all the things a driver has to do, to also look at what's happening on the footpath.
You have an attitude problem that reveals an emotional side to you, which in turn means you are incapable of pragmatic and objective decisions and conclusions.
So much for your time at uni if this is typical of your thoughts on this topic.
You really are out of it, when you call road users 'road hogs'.
For your information, I have more smarts on the subject than you and your stupid lecturer put together.
For example, who was the classic supreme idiot who decided to mix cars, and on major arteries, with cyclists.
Fools the lot of you, because the speeds are incompatible.
What should have happened is the cyclists should have been relegated to back streets, and in lieu of, footpaths.
You can shove your DATA, I work with actuals and the real world.
OH, and BTW, now I know who we can partly blame for, at least some of the road deaths/tolls in this country.