Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by hippy, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. On 2005-02-22, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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


    I have a hybrid. I want a road bike for commuting. $1,000 and up for
    something reasonable. As somebody with a new mortgage, I can't justify
    that money, especially since I already have a perfectly serviceable
    bike.

    Maybe in a year or so. *sighs* Something like the OCR 3, but I
    definitely need panniers. AFAICT, the OCR 3 doesn't have the lugs I'd
    need to hook up the pannier frame.

    --
    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".
     


  2. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > hippy wrote:
    >>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?


    This question was addressed better than I could manage by Stuart Lamble
    in another post.
    All I can do is echo what he said and note that there are many more
    4wd's on the road (typically containing 1 occupant and no goods) than
    vans, trucks and buses. With the current 4wd boom, this will only get
    worse.
    Imagine if every one of the 'solo' Land Cruiser drivers caught the bus
    instead? The roads would be almost empty.. ahh.. cycling bliss.. ;)

    hippy
     
  3. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > 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.


    OOooh.. watch yourself pal! :p

    My most common drive is in an '89 Magna to... Mildura!

    hippy
     
  4. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    TimC <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > 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 bitching 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.


    So you can drive safely behind a truck because it has a "purpose in
    life" but not a smaller 4WD? And by the way, you should never rely on
    other drivers having good reflexes etc. I'm sure you don't do so as a
    cyclist, so what changes when you get in a car?

    I've seen crap 4WD drivers and I've seen crap truck drivers (although the
    latter is rarer but potentially with more lethal consequences), but
    rather than propose banning 4WDs why not propose further compulsory
    driver training combined with proper enforcement of penalties for
    poor/dangerous driving? The standard of driving in Australia in general
    isn't great and most drivers out there would certainly benefit from some
    sort of re-training. Yes it would cost a lot of money, but retraining
    every 5 years or so would be a small addition to the annual cost of
    running a vehicle.

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


    That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,
    does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
    dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
    the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
    the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
    time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.

    Graeme
     
  5. On 2005-02-22, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
    > That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,
    > does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
    > dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
    > the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
    > the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
    > time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.


    Trains can carry more people. When they get off the freeway, they still
    have their own dedicated path, and hence aren't subject to traffic
    delays. The pollution problem is pushed elsewhere, and might be less,
    depending on the technology used to generate the electricity (if it's
    diesel trains, ignore this point).

    That's off the top of my head. There might be others.

    --
    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".
     
  6. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 05:15 GMT, Graeme (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,


    :)

    > does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
    > dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
    > the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
    > the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
    > time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.


    I'd prefer trains, but only because I know which trains to catch, and
    where the route goes :)

    They are also more energy efficient, I think (rails present almost no
    friction, and they have regenerative braking almost by their very
    nature). Course, they are heavier, so maybe that loses in the end.

    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX.
     
  7. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > When they get off the freeway, they still
    > have their own dedicated path, and hence aren't subject to traffic
    > delays.


    But if you built a dedicated bus lane rather than a train line you'd
    still have that advantage, plus the flexibility to use normal roads. This
    is the main point that my friend was making and despite my ideas of the
    advantages of trains (pretty much the same as yours) it did make a lot
    of sense. In Perth the main north/south line runs down the centre of the
    freeway with buses feeding to and from the stations to the suburbs. It
    was pointed out that with a dedicated bus lane you could do away with the
    bus to train change and just have the bus continue down the lane.

    In fact, it makes more sense now. With the current setup you have, say, 3
    or 4 buses per suburb able to provide a service every 10 minutes
    connecting to a 10 minute train service carrying, as you state, much more
    people from more suburbs. Once you get in to the CBD, you can have more
    local bus links. Using bus lanes, to provide the similar 10 minute
    service to even one suburb would require many more buses and even the bus
    lanes would end up as one long traffic jam.

    Cheers!

    Graeme
     
  8. Dave

    Dave Guest

    ProfTournesol wrote:
    > Kim Hawtin Wrote:
    >
    >>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:)
    >
    >

    All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation. The way to
    out heavy a volvo is with a 4wd. The 4wd drivers are merely armoured
    volvo drivers.

    Dave
     
  9. *Keeping this off-thread - sorry!*

    Big debate at the moment in SE Qld is the Ipswich Motorway. Dirty big
    road that is one great big parking lot during peak hours, as commuters
    rush from Ipswich/Western Suburbs into BrisVegas. Much hoo-ha about how
    to fix it, because it is often at a standstill during peak times
    (luckily I don't live out that way...)

    What I don't understand is - can't the car drivers see the BIG
    [email protected]#$$%ing TRAIN LINE running right next to the frigging motorway????
    And all the happy commuters hooting passed them in air-conditioned
    comfort on the train??

    Why is it so hard to leave the car at home and catch public transport??
    I'm sure some people see itas some sort of step down the social
    hierarchy if they decide to get a bus/train...

    ALSO - I either cycle or bus to work. On the Busway (dedicated bus road
    alongsidethe SE Freeway), they have big metal fences up blocking vision
    between the freeway & the busway. Wouldn't it be better if this fence
    eas gone?? That way, during peak hour, all the idiot car drivers
    sitting still would SEE the buses go zooming passed on their own road,
    and maybe work something obvious out themselves.....

    Cheers,
    Absent Husband
     
  10. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:
    > , Theo Bekkers 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.


    I don't think trains deliver to shops.

    >> 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?


    Yes. Do you think keeping a safe distance, one that enables you to stop or
    evade a changed traffic condition, is the responsibility of yourself, or
    that of the driver in front of you?

    Theo
     
  11. On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:22:14 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"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.


    Remember when Commodores first came out? There were ads in Europe for
    the same car - apart from the engine - describing it as one of the few
    cars specifically designed for a 2 litre, 4 cylinder engine.


    --
    Regards.
    Richard.
     
  12. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:

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


    But, but, but my wife loves her RAV4. It is shorter, narrower, and lighter
    than my ute. It might even be lower. It has a smaller motor and uses less
    fuel. The ute does corner better though.

    Theo :)
     
  13. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Andrew Price wrote:

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


    Theo reaching for the cigars.
     
  14. ProfTournesol

    ProfTournesol New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0


    trucks are a necessary evil. Urban Assault Vehicles are not.
     
  15. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    Dave <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation. The way to
    > out heavy a volvo is with a 4wd. The 4wd drivers are merely armoured
    > volvo drivers.


    And the next step up is something like this
    http://alex.halavais.net/news/index.php?p=339

    Complete with pointy bit at the front to push those troublesome little
    Volvos out of the way :)


    Graeme
     
  16. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > Yes. Do you think keeping a safe distance, one that enables you to stop or
    > evade a changed traffic condition, is the responsibility of yourself, or
    > that of the driver in front of you?


    Do you think being able to see more than one car ahead is a benefit or a
    hindrance???

    hippy
     
  17. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Absent Husband wrote:
    > Why is it so hard to leave the car at home and catch public transport??
    > I'm sure some people see itas some sort of step down the social
    > hierarchy if they decide to get a bus/train...


    They do. Some of my relatives have voiced that very notion to me.

    hippy
     
  18. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 06:14 GMT, Dave (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > ProfTournesol wrote:
    >> they're Urban Assault Vehicles in our house:)


    Why can't I think of a good word starting with U?

    Suburban Uncontrollable Vehicles? (there are apparently 3929 words
    starting with U, yet the best 'dict assault' could come up with as a
    synonym is "unprovoked assault").

    > All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation.


    I swear I just posted this elsewhere:

    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons"

    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    Your powerful weapons are no match for our puny brains.
     
  19. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation. The way to
    > out heavy a volvo is with a 4wd. The 4wd drivers are merely armoured
    > volvo drivers.


    Does Aussie Disposals sell tanks??

    Check it:
    http://www.daystoamaze.co.uk/pages/product331.tpl

    hippy
    - off to mess with some Toorak Tractors.. ;)
     
  20. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:

    > All I can do is echo what he said and note that there are many more
    > 4wd's on the road (typically containing 1 occupant and no goods) than
    > vans, trucks and buses. With the current 4wd boom, this will only get
    > worse.
    > Imagine if every one of the 'solo' Land Cruiser drivers caught the bus
    > instead? The roads would be almost empty.. ahh.. cycling bliss.. ;)


    Surely every 4WD containing one person would only be replacing a car with
    one person. Contrary to popular opinion a 4WD takes up no more road space
    than a car. Except for 2.5 metre Smart4twos most cars vary in length by very
    little more than a metre (including Land-Crushers). Allowing a two second
    gap at 60 km/h would mean a 5 metre car takes up 38.3 metres of road, a
    Corolla 37.5. Wow, how rude of the 5 metre car.
    For comparison, a Corolla is 4175 long, a RAV4 is 4255 long and a
    Landcruiser 100 is 4890 long. This will give you some idea of the amount of
    'space' they take up. BTW, a Commodore sedan is 4866 long and a wagon 5033.

    Cheers

    Theo
     
Loading...
Loading...