Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom



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".
 
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
 
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
 
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 *****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.

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 **** 4WD drivers and I've seen **** 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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
*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
F!@#$$%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
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
Theo Bekkers said:
Stuart Lamble wrote:


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.

Again, how do you feel about trucks?

Theo
Click to expand...


trucks are a necessary evil. Urban Assault Vehicles are not.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.. ;)
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Magpies are bloody psychic
Replies
6
Views
873
Australia and New Zealand
SteveA
SteveA
Top Bottom Back