Bristolf2b

Whilst we are on the subject, a few myths to bust regarding cyclists. Unfortunately many people who have issues with cyclists don't wish to recognise some of their 'facts' are actually wrong because it doesn't suit their mindset: 1. They have no insurance: Two points about this, first, you are much more likely to be hit by an uninsured driver than an uninsured cyclist. There are over 1.2 million uninsured vehicles on UK roads according to the latest estimates. Second, which links to the first, a large proportion of cyclists on UK roads are insured for third party damage through their house insurance policy. not every one though and perhaps that may be worth looking into but at present it has a number of practical issues to overcome 2. They pay no road tax so shouldn't be on the road: Again, two points. First,there is no such thing as a hypothocated road tax e.g. Tax that is taken specifically from road users for road building/maintenance. So NO ONE pays road tax. There is Vehicle Excise Duty which is based on carbon Dioxode emissions and goes into the general taxation pot. So as cyclists CO2 emissions are very low they don't have to pay VED on their cycle. Most will however be paying VED on their vehicle as most cyclists are also motorists. They also pay VAT, income tax etc. etc. the same as anyone else so do contribute to the pool of income that goes towards road building etc. Second, if you follow the logic that No VED, No use of the road, then electric vehicles, hybrids and those with emissions below 99g/km should also be removed. Hypothecated tax is likely to return by the end of the decade unless parliament overturns the new duties outlined by George Osbourne in 2015 2. Using the primary position or 'taking a lane' Sometimes non-cyclists don't understand why a cyclist or group of cyclists will be in the middle of their lane on what appears to be a blind corner making it 'difficult to overtake' . Well, the clue is the 'blind corner' they may well be protecting themselves AND the driver behind from an unsafe manoeuvre. Having said all of the above, there are idiots in any walk of life, and many times I have seen people on bikes do stupid things which gives all cyclists a bad name. In the same way there are idiot drivers who give motorists a bad name. But for some reason the former seem to engender behaviour that is inappropriate and dangerous in the latter

I believe they said on the Midland's today news story that over 90% of the collisions were caused by bad driving on the part of the motorised vehicles "with no fault on the part of the cyclist"

I am delighted to see how moderate the comments are here compared to other sites and FB pages. Perhaps it shows how sensible and considerate most Skoda drivers are. An interesting statistic from the West Midland's Police study was how few of the injuries to cyclists when "in collision" with a car were their own fault.

It's when the consumption of oil reaches 1 litre per 500 miles you have to worry. That is according to VAG. I'd be worried with a lot less oil per 500 miles than that.

Bear in mind you may not be towing for a significant portion of your driving, so think whether DSG is for you in your day to day situation as well. Many like the DSG experience, a few others don't so have you tried one before?

The feeling is entirely mutual. Take a chill pill Bro'

It always amuses me that people who enthuse so much about DSG can't understand why others don't share their love. It's merely your opinion that it can only because they are not using it properly, not a fact. As the article above shows, it is not as simple as that. I would imagine the person writing the article has driven a very wide range of vehicles so he is entitled to make his comments based on personal experience of driving it for six months. People are different, they like different things. surely this is a good thing. For example, I really liked the look of the original Fiat Multipla. I am aware I was in a minority so wouldn't dream of suggesting those who don't like the looks weren't looking at it properly. I am also aware that on this forum I am probably in a minority because of my dislike of DSG gearboxes, particularly on diesel vehicles. That doesn't make my opinion any less valid as it is based on my own set of values. I don't like DSG, would not buy DSG, and yes, before the question is asked (again) I have driven many DSG vehicles, petrol and diesel over many many miles.

It was interesting ( to me at least) that the least successful part of the experience was the DSG gearbox.

I swapped my Superb II from variable to fixed service intervals for exactly the reasons outlined by silver 101. My brother who spends most of his journeys on the motorways and does triple the mileage I do changed his VAG car from fixed to variable.

On summer tyres , 18" with approx 6mm tread all round my SII speedo reads +3 mph pretty much across the (legal) speed range, as checked on a recent trip to Scotland with my brother in the passenger seat checking on a couple of GPs units at 30, 50, 60 and 70 mph indicated. This suggests that it is an electronic add on, as if it were mechanical it would be different at each of the above speeds. I would guess the SIII would be similar

Having owned and driven seven 4wd cars in the past 20 years, i'd not go back to FWD. I accept the reduced mileage. Since most have had slightly lower gearing than the FWD equivalent, the "oomph " is not lacking, indeed the quoted 0-60 times have been, on the whole, identical. I have yet to have any part of the 4wd system on any of them fail.

I am keeping mine, as a small gesture to show that I didn't vote for the start of the gradual decline of what little will be left of this once tolerant and outward looking country

When my partner bought her Polo last April, the dealer encouraged her to take out the VW finance then pay it off the next day. The cost to her was about £8 in interest and for that she received £1000 contribution to the car cost and 3 years servicing for £100, both of which she kept even though we paid it off straight away. So I don't think that is a 'loophole' the dealers are unaware of

The wires very occasionally cause scatter patterns in low sun conditions. Other than that no problem at all. Plusses hugely outweigh minuses

Well, each to their own. Everyone is different. I hate not having enough fuel in the car to ensure I can get home (unless on a very long journey, and even then I top it up regularly as above). The game of chicken you describe is an anathema to me. I can't remember the last time I didn't fill up at one of those pumps that you enter your card in advance-no hold ups at the tills you describe.

Its not the capacity that concerns me, it is the draining the tank till nearly dry I don't get. I never top up at motorway services either, I use the satnav to find a local supermarket

I honestly don't get why people get to the dregs before filling unless on a really long journey, and even then you will be stopping to have a rest/change drivers etc and so might as well spend another 5mins filling up. 550 miles at an average of say 65 mph is about 8.5 hours driving......... I'd much rather fill up when having a break and then not have to worry about driving on fumes. Each to their own I guess. I tend to fill mine once a week when I go to the supermarket when not on a longer journey.

and i'd go for the manual every time- the manual gearbox is great, DSG isn't (IMHO)

19" would be a bad move if you wanted to retain at least some of the ride quality. IMHO of course.

What age would the Voyager be? If it is the earlier model I would be very wary of getting one, if only because of the dire crash testing results obtained by EuroNcap http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/chrysler/voyager/15715 The later one (2011 on?) is much better. http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/lancia/voyager/12062 http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/chrysler/grand-voyager/verdict

Build quality, ride quality and space. Engine won't be as sweet though and DSG/diesel interface a bit more clunky

Marmite option Those who love it won't hear a word against it, those who don't find lots of reasons to avoid. I'm in the latter group. Just in case you were wondering

Yup, entirely right, it is up to each individual to make the choice. The OP asked for opinions and now has lots for and against. Personally, for my own reasons, I would always choose it over almost any other option, certainly before a DSG gearbox*or an improved sound system or a flash set of 19" alloys that just ruin the ride for example. I can see why others would not and make different choices. *Skoda, along with the rest of the VAG group are making it increasingly hard to get more their powerful 4wd cars without DSG. I for one regret this choice limitation. I may have mentioned this before.

I would not agree with this. It is nothing to do with overtaking, nor racing on a track. How many 4wd track based race cars are there? Not many.Saying that you never need it- have you lived with a 4wd car for any length of time? If not, why not give it a try, you may be surprised. However, it is all down to personal choice so if it doesn't suit, don't get a vehicle with 4wd. Having said that, I have just thought of another potential disadvantage: Once you have spent some time with 4wd you never want to go back so it limits your choice of the next vehicle

The potential disadvantages are, in no particular order: Higher purchase price (usually) Higher fuel consumption-anything up to 10% on Haldex cars due to the extra weight and mechanical drag although may be less Higher VED if it pitches the vehicle into another tax bracket-not sure about the Octavia vRs in this context Higher servicing costs at the Haldex service intervals -every 40000 miles or four years I think? I am sure others may think of a few more Pluses for me: Traction Stability the extra weight in the rear improves ride quality, admittedly subjective, but it seems to be true of my Superb and is certainly the case in the non-vRs Octavias (also due to more sophisticated suspension)