Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

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

  1. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:

    > Lets ignore the fact that leaving a couple of seconds gap between cars
    > will be instantly filled by impatient arseholes trying anything to get
    > home quicker -


    Hopefully a Barina will fill the gap ad your problem will be gone.

    > There's no need for these vehicles unless you are off-road in the bush
    > where a standard car wouldn't operate safely - 4wd owners should be
    > made to justify their use of such vehicles before being allowed to
    > purchase them. Yuppies using 2t of steel to drop of little Sarah to
    > MLC is NOT a justifiable use. Driving to the Yarra Valley for wine
    > tastings of a Sunday afternoon is NOT a justifiable use. Claiming you
    > need it to pack your kite-surfer or tow your boat, when a Commodore
    > will do, guess what? NOT a justifiable use.


    I guess a RAV4 would be pretty useless off-road. When I go off-road I take
    an 11 tonne 4WD with limited slip diffs. Our local fire-truck.

    Theo
     


  2. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > 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.


    Probably because there's a 4wd in front of you! :p

    > 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. :)


    But then the braking distance is gone and you have to create another
    gap, rinse, repeat.
    You're just sticking up for them because you own one! :p

    hippy
     
  3. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    Lots of people wrote lots of stuff that I've snipped.... my 2cents worth:

    Rant on:

    I can't quite work out the 4WD thing. I've had some myself when I lived on a
    small farm and went bush every couple of weeks. When I moved to the 'burbs I
    bought another car, mainly because the Nissan Patrol I had was on the way to
    stuffed. I thought about another 4WD (I share the irritation of the term
    'SUV') but figured that with a smaller, ordinary car I can hire a 4WD
    whenever I please for going bush, payed for with the fuel savings. That's
    worked out pretty well. By the way, I count as 4WDs those vehicles that sit
    high up and look much like trucks. Subarus and the like (similar to an
    ordinary car) I don't refer to as 4WDs even when they have 4WD; more
    accurately they are All Wheel Drives.

    Of course the safety factor had to be taken into account, which made buying
    an ordinary small car an even easier choice: less tendency to roll and more
    manoeuvrable in traffic. I can't imagine why anyone with a synapse would buy
    a 4WD for safety! Didn't anyone do physics at school?

    My parameters for an ordinary car are simply that it loads and holds my
    bikes/diving gear/whatever easily and that it's relatively cheap to buy and
    run. So far a Commodore, Subaru Touring Wagon, Hyundai Excel and Hyundai
    Elantra have fulfilled that OK. In fact I could fit more in the Subaru than
    I could in the Patrol (more floor space). All the above cars held two bikes
    easily inside with back seats folded down and front wheels removed from the
    bikes. So why should I buy an unneccessary tank?

    I can't see why one needs to expend the energy to move a couple of tons of
    steel around all year for *maybe* the occasional trip into the bush. As for
    the Rav 4s, Suzukis and other little toyboxes I see even less point in them.
    They seem to have the poor road performance and lack of agility of the
    larger 4WDs as well as a lack of off-road ability. They do nothing well
    except, as has been pointed out, block the view of other drivers. All the
    drawbacks of both types of vehicle rolled into one package! How come the
    marketoids didn't include that in their blurbs?

    I tend to go along with (I think it was) Billy Connely's view on guns: The
    first question when applying for a gun license should be, "Do you live in
    town?" If you reply, "Yes" then you're obviously too unstable to be trusted
    with one. The same applies when licensing a 4WD...

    Me (not trolling, just commenting... don't get me started on suburban bull
    bars!)

    Rant off.
     
  4. On 2005-02-22, hippy <[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. It's not about the length of the car. It's about the
    >> HEIGHT of the car.

    >
    > "you took the words right outta my mouth.."
    > "it musta been.. um.. cut!"


    Unless you're a female in her twenties or early thirties, we definitely
    *don't* want to finish that quote. :)

    --
    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".
     
  5. On 2005-02-22, hippy <[email protected]> wrote:
    > There's no need for these vehicles unless you are off-road in the bush
    > where a standard car wouldn't operate safely - 4wd owners should be made
    > to justify their use of such vehicles before being allowed to purchase
    > them. Yuppies using 2t of steel to drop of little Sarah to MLC is NOT a
    > justifiable use. Driving to the Yarra Valley for wine tastings of a
    > Sunday afternoon is NOT a justifiable use. Claiming you need it to pack
    > your kite-surfer or tow your boat, when a Commodore will do, guess what?
    > NOT a justifiable use.


    I like the suggestion made by a co-worker. They're trucks: they have
    truck tyres; truck engines; truck chassis; and physics means they react
    in a similar way to unloaded prime movers. Ergo, to drive one, you
    should need a truck license.

    Hm. Why have sales of 4WDs suddenly plummeted?

    --
    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. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:

    > You're just sticking up for them because you own one! :p


    Not really, my wife does. I get to drive it sometimes, like tomorrow, when
    it needs to have a service. Guess who pays? :)

    I think we have pretty much worked out that the length, width, and fuel
    consumption of 4WDs are pretty much irrelevant. After many posts it appears
    that people dislike their height. So why pick on 4WDs. There's Taragos,
    Tributes, Voyagers and a whole bunch of happy-vans that have the same height
    without the 4WD and also block your view. Why does nobody complain about
    them?
    Shall we make a law that all cars must be no taller than the eyes of a
    cyclist? How about the poor people in Ferraris, they can't see over or past
    a Corolla. They must really be frustrated.

    Theo
     
  7. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Plodder wrote:

    > I can't quite work out the 4WD thing. I've had some myself when I
    > lived on a small farm and went bush every couple of weeks.

    <snip sensible stuff>

    I pretty much agree with all that. I drive a ute as I need to carry stuff
    more often than I have passengers. A bit hard to get a cement mixer in the
    boot of a Corolla, or a RAV4.
    Or a bicycle.

    Theo
     
  8. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:

    > I like the suggestion made by a co-worker. They're trucks: they have
    > truck tyres; truck engines; truck chassis; and physics means they
    > react in a similar way to unloaded prime movers. Ergo, to drive one,
    > you should need a truck license.


    If you check your Drivers Licence (assuming your state has adopted the
    so-called new 'standard') you will find your basic car licence allows you to
    drive a truck, providing it has no more than two axles and weighs less than
    4.5 tonnes. I think that pretty much covers a Hummer or a Mazda T4500.

    Theo
     
  9. 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".
     
  10. On 2005-02-23, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Stuart Lamble wrote:
    >
    >> I like the suggestion made by a co-worker. They're trucks: they have
    >> truck tyres; truck engines; truck chassis; and physics means they
    >> react in a similar way to unloaded prime movers. Ergo, to drive one,
    >> you should need a truck license.

    >
    > If you check your Drivers Licence (assuming your state has adopted the
    > so-called new 'standard') you will find your basic car licence allows you to
    > drive a truck, providing it has no more than two axles and weighs less than
    > 4.5 tonnes. I think that pretty much covers a Hummer or a Mazda T4500.


    I know, but I can dream nonetheless :)

    --
    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".
     
  11. SteveA

    SteveA New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the suggestion made by a co-worker. They're trucks: they have
    truck tyres; truck engines; truck chassis; and physics means they react
    in a similar way to unloaded prime movers. Ergo, to drive one, you
    should need a truck license.

    [/QUOTE]


    4WD + 8 metre caravan + 18 year old driver = car licence

    Any time, any road

    ???????

    You need a truck licence to drive a truck much smaller than that!

    I reckon there should be towing licences _and_ truck licences for the large 4WDs. And scrap licences for life. Retest every 5 years. That would stop bad habits developing.

    (yes I know most drivers of the above are 50+ years but the point about the possibility is still valid)

    SteveA
     
  12. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:
    > Theo Bekkers wrote:


    >> 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;


    We also recently (last month) bought a company Astra. This one was for the
    D-I-L's sister, who also works for us. We're a bit incestious as a company.
    Nice car. CDXI or something. Our other company cars are a Holden Combo
    (ugh!), a Mercedes C180 (the supercharged one), a Holden Storm V6 ute, a
    Holden SS V8 ute, and a Hyundai Grandeur, the new V8 Adventra, and my Ford
    Courier.

    >> 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.


    How do you feel about the people-movers? Voyager, Tribute, Tarago. These
    also have height, are not 4WD and rarely have more than one person in them.

    >> 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. :)


    You'll have to do most of your driving a 2am to remain calm. :)

    > 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...


    I agree with the active/passive safety thing. ABS and good frame geometry
    can prevent accidents. No seatbelt or airbag has ever prevented an accident.
    They may have even caused some.

    I drive a 2003 Ford Courier ute (a Mazda wit a Ford badge made in Thailand).
    Have you perhaps noticed that utes are getting taller? The seat height in my
    ute (not a 4WD) is higher than the RAV4.

    Cheers

    Theo
     
  13. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 at 09:14 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > On 2005-02-23, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 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


    But when, in focus groups, industry marketers probed further,
    they heard things that left them rolling their eyes. As Keith
    Bradsher writes in "High and Mighty"--perhaps the most important
    book about Detroit since Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any
    Speed"--what consumers said was "If the vehicle is up high, it's
    easier to see if something is hiding underneath or lurking behind
    it." Bradsher brilliantly captures the mixture of bafflement and
    contempt that many auto executives feel toward the customers who
    buy their S.U.V.s. Fred J. Schaafsma, a top engineer for General
    Motors, says, "Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I
    wonder how people view me,' and are more willing to trade off
    flexibility or functionality to get that." According to Bradsher,
    internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to
    be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and
    self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages,
    and who lack confidence in their driving skills.


    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    "How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only
    coded it." (Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)
     
  14. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    SteveA wrote:

    > 4WD + 8 metre caravan + 18 year old driver = car licence
    >
    > Any time, any road
    >
    > ???????
    >
    > You need a truck licence to drive a truck much smaller than that!


    You don't need a truck licence till the towing vehicle weighs more than 4.5
    tonnes and then you can tow 1.5 times the weight of the towing vehicle if
    the trailer has brakes. GVW of 11.25 tonnes, 18, and on P plates. Scary!
    More realistically, a Lancruiser 100 series can tow a 3 tonne caravan,
    making an all-up weight of 5 tonnes. And there are lots of them out there,
    mostly driven by pensioners.

    > I reckon there should be towing licences _and_ truck licences for the
    > large 4WDs. And scrap licences for life. Retest every 5 years. That
    > would stop bad habits developing.


    You think that would solve anything? I like the British method (at least
    when I was there in 67) of driver education with TV ads. You got several
    every evening telling you about some road situation and what to do in it.
    Don't know if they still do that.

    > (yes I know most drivers of the above are 50+ years but the point
    > about the possibility is still valid)


    I was 50 more than a decade ago. :)

    Theo
     
  15. Dave

    Dave Guest

    hippy wrote:
    > 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.. ;)


    At one stage we had one :)

    Dave
     
  16. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:
    > On 2005-02-22, hippy <[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. It's not about the length of the car. It's about the
    >>>HEIGHT of the car.

    >>
    >>"you took the words right outta my mouth.."
    >>"it musta been.. um.. cut!"

    >
    > Unless you're a female in her twenties or early thirties, we definitely
    > *don't* want to finish that quote. :)


    Unless 'Stuart' is a trendy new name for women in their mid-20's, the
    "cut!" stays! :)

    hippy
     
  17. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > I think we have pretty much worked out that the length, width, and fuel
    > consumption of 4WDs are pretty much irrelevant. After many posts it appears
    > that people dislike their height. So why pick on 4WDs. There's Taragos,
    > Tributes, Voyagers and a whole bunch of happy-vans that have the same height
    > without the 4WD and also block your view. Why does nobody complain about
    > them?


    Because this thread started discussing 4wd's. If it makes you feel
    better, a people-mover with one person in it is just as sh1t as a 4wd
    (assuming it's the same height, etc..).

    Thing is.. there's waaaay less people-movers on the road. I don't think
    I've ever had an issue with one.. yet.. 4wd's on the other hand.. sheeet!

    > Shall we make a law that all cars must be no taller than the eyes of a
    > cyclist? How about the poor people in Ferraris, they can't see over or past
    > a Corolla. They must really be frustrated.


    Serves 'em right! Rich bastards! ;) :p

    How about a law that prevents the use of vehicles over a certain size,
    within a particular radius of the CBD? Exceptions could be made for
    commercial uses.

    Taxing 4wd's properly would be nice too. Basically, I'm in favour of
    anything that makes large 4wd's less attractive to buyers.

    hippy
     
  18. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:

    > How about a law that prevents the use of vehicles over a certain size,
    > within a particular radius of the CBD? Exceptions could be made for
    > commercial uses.


    Very difficult to do as the authorities would pick length as being the
    obvious criteria. Ban anything over 5 metres and Land-Cruisers will stay,
    Commodore wagons would be out.

    > Taxing 4wd's properly would be nice too. Basically, I'm in favour of
    > anything that makes large 4wd's less attractive to buyers.


    I'm in favour of anybody being able to buy and drive any vehicle that is
    legally defined as being for use on the roads. Including bicycles and
    recumbents. I see no need to tax any passenger vehicle differently.

    4WDs are not a problem for me. I encounter road trains every day on my
    commute. B-triples, B-doubles with an extra trailer, and heavy rigids (four
    axle trucks) towing two trailers (14 axles, 52 wheels). This is on a one
    lane each way "Highway". Their only limit is 36.4 metres in length.You think
    I'm going to be bothered by a 5 metre two-axle Land-Cruiser? Pffft!

    Theo
     
  19. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

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

    > 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.


    Be careful about putting your faith in ABS (or any other safety feature for
    that matter). There was some research done in Germany some years back where
    taxis fitted with ABS were found to be just as likely to be involved in an
    accident as non-ABS taxis, mainly down to increased risk taking by the
    drivers. ABS doesn't decrease braking distance (and can actually increase
    it) it only allows manouverability when braking hard. And the shunt I saw
    on the way into work this morning seems to show that when many people slam
    on the brakes the last thing they think about is actually steering out of
    harm's way.

    Graeme
     
  20. Oscar

    Oscar Guest

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

    >
    >
    > Be careful about putting your faith in ABS (or any other safety feature for
    > that matter). There was some research done in Germany some years back where
    > taxis fitted with ABS were found to be just as likely to be involved in an
    > accident as non-ABS taxis, mainly down to increased risk taking by the
    > drivers. ABS doesn't decrease braking distance (and can actually increase
    > it) it only allows manouverability when braking hard. And the shunt I saw
    > on the way into work this morning seems to show that when many people slam
    > on the brakes the last thing they think about is actually steering out of
    > harm's way.
    >
    > Graeme


    Some unfortunate car thieves in WA recently discovered that hotwiring a
    car disables the airbags. Poetic justice in a sad sort of a way.
     
Loading...
Loading...