Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

[ProfTournesol]

Dave wrote:
> When you talk to these mums.. the main reason they have a 4wd is so
> darling child will be safe.. from other mums in 4wds

praps all these mums should just get volvos.
then they will be safe and it'll be a whole lot easier to spot.
and it'll also make prados and pajeros easier to outlaw as pointless
poluting status symbols. or show ponys as my wife calls them =)

kim

they're Urban Assault Vehicles in our house

 

[Theo Bekkers]

ProfTournesol wrote:
> Kim Hawtin Wrote:

>> and it'll also make prados and pajeros easier to outlaw as pointless
>> poluting status symbols. or show ponys as my wife calls them =)

> they're Urban Assault Vehicles in our house

I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming 10
litres /100 km is antisocial, yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre Commodore
Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable. There are many all
Wheel drive vehicles out there which are shorter, lighter, and consume less
fuel than the average Falcodore.

Theo
Owning a Ford Courier 2.6 litre ute.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-02-21, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
> some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming 10
> litres /100 km is antisocial, yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre Commodore
> Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable. There are many all
> Wheel drive vehicles out there which are shorter, lighter, and consume less
> fuel than the average Falcodore.

From my point of view, the issue is one of visibility. Assume for the
sake of discussion that I'm driving around town in my two litre Holden
Vectra sedan. I like to be able to see what's happening ahead of me.
Depending on how much I'm focusing on my driving, I'm watching between 1
and 5 or 6 cars in front of me, so I can react to things well in front
of me before they propagate back to me. This is an Extremely Useful
skill to cultivate, because it means if there's a multi-car bingle up
ahead, you have that much more time to react and possibly avoid becoming
a part of it.

If I'm stuck behind something that has a 4WD form factor -- such as a
RAV4 -- then I can only react to what the RAV4 does. I am relying upon
the driver of the RAV4 having good reflexes and anticipating what the
traffic ahead is doing, because I am blind -- the RAV4 is blocking my
vision of what I like to see happening ahead.

You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
try to do that. However, when you're on the freeway in peak hour traffic
(but flowing smoothly), trying to leave a two to three second gap is
basically inviting the morons in the next lane over to jump in to try to
shave a millisecond off their transit time. This leads to me slowing
down even further to try to maintain the gap, and more and more people
jumping into the gap, rending the whole damn thing a useless exercise.

So to be completely fair, half the problem is the shape and size of the
vehicle blocking my view; the other half is people not understanding the
physics of driving and assuming that they can stop at the drop of a hat.
It Ain't So, and I need to drive to cater for people not understanding
that It Ain't So. Having a hulking great big four wheel drive in front
of me precludes that.

So it's not so much the polluting part as it is the safety part, at
least for me.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[hippy]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
> some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming 10
> litres /100 km is antisocial, yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre Commodore
> Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable.

16.5l/100km according to:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1590/article.html?popularArticle

> There are many all
> Wheel drive vehicles out there which are shorter, lighter, and consume less
> fuel than the average Falcodore.

I don't like the large 4wd's due to their size. I can't see over them.

When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to the
big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.

hippy

 

[Shabby]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming 10
litres /100 km is antisocial, yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre Commodore
Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable.

We could start on Conformodore drivers as well if you want Theo.

So far the debate has been about bicycle safety, not environmental vandalism. Hippy's link references this quote: "but - even during light-footed urban saunters - you won't get better than 16.5-litres per 100 clicks."

Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of person who then drives it efficiently.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Stuart Lamble wrote:

> From my point of view, the issue is one of visibility. Assume for the
> sake of discussion that I'm driving around town in my two litre Holden
> Vectra sedan. I like to be able to see what's happening ahead of me.
> Depending on how much I'm focusing on my driving, I'm watching
> between 1 and 5 or 6 cars in front of me, so I can react to things
> well in front of me before they propagate back to me. This is an
> Extremely Useful skill to cultivate, because it means if there's a
> multi-car bingle up ahead, you have that much more time to react and
> possibly avoid becoming a part of it.
>
> If I'm stuck behind something that has a 4WD form factor -- such as a
> RAV4 -- then I can only react to what the RAV4 does. I am relying upon
> the driver of the RAV4 having good reflexes and anticipating what the
> traffic ahead is doing, because I am blind -- the RAV4 is blocking my
> vision of what I like to see happening ahead.

So why are you not *****ing and whining about semis and trying to get them
banned? Surely much worse than a RAV4 to see over or around.

> You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
> try to do that.

Yes. You think it fair to blame the 4WD form factor driver for your lack of
sensible driving practice?

> So to be completely fair, half the problem is the shape and size of
> the vehicle blocking my view; the other half is people not
> understanding the physics of driving and assuming that they can stop
> at the drop of a hat. It Ain't So, and I need to drive to cater for
> people not understanding that It Ain't So. Having a hulking great big
> four wheel drive in front of me precludes that.

Again, how do you feel about trucks?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

hippy wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre
>> Commodore Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable.

> 16.5l/100km according to:
> http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1590/article.html?popularArticle

Thank you. Hmmm, the same as a 3.5 litre Holden Rodeo ute.

>> There are many all
>> Wheel drive vehicles out there which are shorter, lighter, and
>> consume less fuel than the average Falcodore.

> I don't like the large 4wd's due to their size. I can't see over them.
>
> When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
> ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
> to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to
> the big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.

How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
problem than a little RAV4?

Theo

 

[TimC]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 at 23:50 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> ProfTournesol wrote:
>> Kim Hawtin Wrote:
>
>>> and it'll also make prados and pajeros easier to outlaw as pointless
>>> poluting status symbols. or show ponys as my wife calls them =)
>
>> they're Urban Assault Vehicles in our house
>
> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
> some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming 10
> litres /100 km is antisocial, yet my daughter in law's 5.7 litre Commodore

500km costs 50 litres? Damn, my little colt would get up to Mildura on
less far than a tank of petrol. A tank being $25 or so, and hence
maybe 35L or so. And it was 20 years old, so not all that fuel efficient.

> Wagon consuming who knows what is socially acceptable. There are many all

Who said Commodores are socially acceptable? They are the cars I
usually stay clear of because of the morons typically inside
them. Just like my next door neighbour.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
MacOSX: Sort of like a pedigree persian cat. Very sleek, very
sexy, but a little too prone to going cross-eyed, biting you on
your thumb and then throwing up on your trousers. -- Jim @ ASR

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-02-22, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> If I'm stuck behind something that has a 4WD form factor -- such as a
>> RAV4 -- then I can only react to what the RAV4 does. I am relying upon
>> the driver of the RAV4 having good reflexes and anticipating what the
>> traffic ahead is doing, because I am blind -- the RAV4 is blocking my
>> vision of what I like to see happening ahead.
>
> So why are you not *****ing and whining about semis and trying to get them
> banned? Surely much worse than a RAV4 to see over or around.

Because a semi on the road has a legitimate purpose: moving goods around
from point A to point B. This cannot be achieved with a smaller form
factor.

>> You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
>> try to do that.
>
> Yes. You think it fair to blame the 4WD form factor driver for your lack of
> sensible driving practice?

I blame the 4WD form factor for making parts of sensible driving
practice impossible. An adequate braking distance is part of it, and as
a general rule, I do this. Being able to see the road ahead clearly is
another part of it which many people do not appreciate. If they do, the
likelihood is that they buy a 4WD to give them that clear view, and in
the process, they rob *me* of *my* clear view.

>> So to be completely fair, half the problem is the shape and size of
>> the vehicle blocking my view; the other half is people not
>> understanding the physics of driving and assuming that they can stop
>> at the drop of a hat. It Ain't So, and I need to drive to cater for
>> people not understanding that It Ain't So. Having a hulking great big
>> four wheel drive in front of me precludes that.
>
> Again, how do you feel about trucks?

See above. I have no quibble about people who purchase and use vehicles
in a sane manner; a truck is designed to move goods, and is used for
that purpose. I am yet to see a four wheel drive form factor being used
for a purpose that cannot be achieved using a sedan or station wagon,
neither of which gives me the same level of grief as a driver. I'm
willing to accept the use of a 4WD for towing heavy boats (for example),
but not for general commuting. Even towing can be achieved with a decent
sized Commodore, or even a smaller car depending on the load.

The other consideration: every instance that I have seen a truck on a
road, they have driven in a predictable manner, and have endeavoured to
follow good driving practices. The same cannot be said -- by a VERY long
shot -- about four wheel drives. *Some* do. At best, I'd say it's around
fifty percent ...

Nothing gives me the screaming heebie jeebies quite like seeing a 4WD
duck and weave through traffic. They're accidents waiting to happen when
they do that.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 01:49 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> If I'm stuck behind something that has a 4WD form factor -- such as a
>> RAV4 -- then I can only react to what the RAV4 does. I am relying upon
>> the driver of the RAV4 having good reflexes and anticipating what the
>> traffic ahead is doing, because I am blind -- the RAV4 is blocking my
>> vision of what I like to see happening ahead.
>
> So why are you not *****ing and whining about semis and trying to get them
> banned? Surely much worse than a RAV4 to see over or around.

Because trucks actually have a purpose in life.

Course, I would rather they were replaced by trains, but there is
little chance of that happening any time soon.

>
>> You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
>> try to do that.
>
> Yes. You think it fair to blame the 4WD form factor driver for your lack of
> sensible driving practice?

Did you read the whole explanation?

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Shabby wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit.

> We could start on Conformodore drivers as well if you want Theo.

It was the singling out 4WD's as 'pointless poluting status symbols' that
got my goat. I don't see 4WDs as being any more poluting than the average
Falcodore or blocking anyone's forward vision any more than a bus or a
delivery vehicle.

> So far the debate has been about bicycle safety, not environmental
> vandalism. Hippy's link references this quote: "but - even during
> light-footed urban saunters - you won't get better than 16.5-litres
> per 100 clicks."
>
> Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of
> person who then drives it efficiently.

My daughter in law bought this specific vehicle last week, trading in her
Kia Sorento (big 4WD), because the Kia has considerably less luggage space.
She has to carry around two of my grandchildren, the older being 2 1/2, and
the twin stroller, etc, etc, that goes with two toddlers. The Kia simply
doesn't have the boot space, the Adventra does. And yes, she will probably
be driving it very mildly. Actually it's her 'company' car.

Theo

 

[DaveB]

I say let's cross post this to aus.cars and get a real bikes vs cars
argument going on. Maybe even add aus.motorcycles but I'm not sure whose
side they will take.

DaveB "who cares"

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-02-22, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 01:49 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> So why are you not *****ing and whining about semis and trying to get them
>> banned? Surely much worse than a RAV4 to see over or around.
>
> Because trucks actually have a purpose in life.
>
> Course, I would rather they were replaced by trains, but there is
> little chance of that happening any time soon.

As would I, but there are some aspects of distribution where trains are
clearly inadequate. "Last mile" deliveries for the most part. I can't
even begin to believe that they'd lay rails to every supermarket in
Melbourne, for example.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 01:52 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> hippy wrote:
>> I don't like the large 4wd's due to their size. I can't see over them.
>>
>> When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
>> ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
>> to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to
>> the big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.
>
> How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
> problem than a little RAV4?

Rav4's are big purely to suit the ego of their drivers, and to
increase /perceived/ safety of the occupants (everyone else be
damned).

Trucks, busses, and delivery vehicles are large because that is the
only way they can be made practical.

I would rather see more public transport on the roads that private
vehicles (especially 4WDs and holden commodores), and hence will not
complain about busses or trams on the road.

Trucks I would rather see replaced to an extent by freight trains
(won't work to deliver to the local Safeway, but will work between
cities and major suburbs), and delivery vans can't really be changed -
the things they are used for is shortish travelling around a zig
zagged pattern all over a city. Freight trains are no good for that.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
> Bugger you guys.
> The babelfish is idempotent on the set above.
I'm afraid that isn't a very good pickup line either, Tim. - MaryG

 

[TimC]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 02:07 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2005-02-22, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Because trucks actually have a purpose in life.
>>
>> Course, I would rather they were replaced by trains, but there is
>> little chance of that happening any time soon.
>
> As would I, but there are some aspects of distribution where trains are
> clearly inadequate. "Last mile" deliveries for the most part. I can't
> even begin to believe that they'd lay rails to every supermarket in
> Melbourne, for example.

It's a lovely day dream though.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
>> some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming
>> 10 litres /100 km is antisocial,

> 500km costs 50 litres? Damn, my little colt would get up to Mildura on
> less far than a tank of petrol. A tank being $25 or so, and hence
> maybe 35L or so. And it was 20 years old, so not all that fuel
> efficient.

My son's C180 supercharged Mercedes gets 6 litres/100 kms in the country,
about the same as my motorcycle. The RAV4 about 8.5 litres/100 km on a
country trip.

Why would anybody want to go to Mildura or drive a Colt. I find Colts hard
to spot in traffic. I tend to mistake them for Camiras due to the amount of
smoke.

Theo

 

[suzyj]

Theo wrote:

> Again, how do you feel about trucks?

Pretty good. 4WDs and other unnecessarily large cars spend 90% of their time transporting just one person. Trucks spend 90% of their time transporting quantities of goods that would be difficult to move otherwise.

Trucks at least have a real reason for existance, unlike the standard 4WD owner's "oh, we bought it because we might like to go out to the country one day" excuse.

Regards,

Suzy

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Shabby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of
> person who then drives it efficiently.

Speaking as a Commodore owner, most that you see on the roads will be 3.8L
engines, with considerably better fuel consumption - probably not much worse
than your RAV 4 mobile road screen.

Cheers
Peter

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> hippy wrote:
>
> > I don't like the large 4wd's due to their size. I can't see over them.
> >
> > When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
> > ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
> > to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to
> > the big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.
>
> How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
> problem than a little RAV4?

You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of vehicle -
delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road to do a task that
demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's not much functional
utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by, say, a Toyota Corolla. And
what about the fuel consumption and visual obstruction comparisons here?

Cheers
Peter

 

[Andrew Price]

Peter Signorini wrote:
>
> You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of vehicle -
> delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road to do a task
that
> demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's not much functional
> utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by, say, a Toyota Corolla.
And
> what about the fuel consumption and visual obstruction comparisons here?
>
Curious how we collectively let our behaviour be determined by perceived
image and needs which the advertisers tell us we have.

If you look at the billboard ads or commercials for 4wds its the rugged
outdoor image and seldom required ability to climb 45deg slopes which are
promoted - which in reality are mostly never used. Its not because of their
load carrying capacity - wagons and vans do that better.

Just going way off thread and bringing this back to bicycles for the moment
I suspect the sales ratio discrepancy between road bikes and mtbs (1:10 I am
told by my lbs) is largely down to the same phenomenon - and bless 'em you
will notice the 4wd folk are using mtb's as props in selling the rugged
outdoor image! Most people riding pretty much on paved surfaces need
roadies - but that's not what sells is it?

A very smart accountant once put it to me that your choice of vehicle should
be as modest as your transportation needs and ego will let you will get away
with - because cars are such money wasting devices, its best to limit your
losses.

I just wonder if we shouldn't start equating drivers of Stupid Unnecessary
Vehicles with smokers .... and they stink ...

best, Andrew