On 2005-02-23, Theo Bekkers <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
>> You aren't reading what has been written on the thread. Instead,
>> you're picking and choosing points to nitpicking, and ignoring those
>> that you can't nitpick.
>
> Of course, thsi is usenet isn't it? 
Point.
>> It's not about the length of the car. It's
>> about the HEIGHT of the car.
>> Get in something around the size and shape of a Holden Barina, and go
>> for a drive.
>
> Can I assume your personal vehicle is a Barina?
A Vectra; I use the Barina as an example because the effect is a bit
more obvious in that size of car. It's still there in the Vectra, but
because it's a bigger car, it's not *quite* as obvious. Still very
noticeable, though.
If it weren't for the fact that cars depreciate like crazy, and I don't
want to be buying a replacement car before I've used this one for a good
ten years, I would have gone for an Astra, or something of a comparable
size. For the things I enjoy doing, the Astra -- right now -- would be a
perfectly adequate car; the Vectra, being a little larger, would do the
job very nicely if and when I start up a family. I've had the Vectra for
nearly five years now; still another five years before I look to trade
it in for something new (read: something to replace it, not necessarily
brand spanking new).
The Barina just wouldn't be able to cope with the demands I'd put on it,
especially when it came time to go for a few dives down the south end of
the bay.
>> I don't give a damn if their length is more or less than another car.
>> What I give a damn about is their height -- when you're behind them,
>> you can't tell what's going on ahead, and that's one thing I *very*
>> much want to know as a driver.
>
> I'm saying that many vehicles on the road (for whatever use) are as much of
> a vision block as a 4WD. Yet you do not take umbrage at them because they
> have some, to you, legitimate reason for blocking your view. I personally
> don't see the difference.
Because that is not the distinction. The distinction is that those
vehicles at which I do not take umbrage are the size and shape they are
for good reason; trying to make them lower to the ground would render it
impossible for them to perform the task for which they are meant. I
don't like being stuck behind a truck, but I accept it as a necessary
part of our society.
The umbrage I take at 4WDs is because they *can*, by and large, be
replaced by vehicles that are lower to the ground. This means that
there's a double whammy: not only do they block my view, but they do so
(in what I would estimate are the majority of cases) unnecessarily.
>> *THAT* is what gets me riled about 4WDs, more than anything else. Yes,
>> the fuel guzzling part of it (refer to somebody else's post about
>> drive chain inefficiencies, wind resistance, and the like)
>> contributes to that annoyance, but it's the vision problem that gives
>> me the most grief. The Rav 4 is a lesser annoyance than other 4WDs,
>> but it still irks.
>
> Try a three second gap. Another vehicle will possibly pull into the gap and
> it may not be a 4WD and your problem will be gone.
Diminished, not gone.
Here's another article that sums up a great many of the other reasons
why I dislike 4WDs so much, and far more articulately than I ever could:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
Note in particular the section on active versus passive safety. Very,
*very* telling. To give you an indication on where I stand: when I was
car shopping, I was looking for dual (driver/passenger) airbags, and
ABS. Of the cars that had one or the other, but not both, I strongly
preferred the cars with ABS over the cars with airbags. There's the
whole active/passive safety thing in play, right there...
--
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".
