Re: Blame the faulty drivers of dangerous machinery. 4WDs most dangerouson road

[EuanB]

Where's the rebates for us cyclists (and motorcyclists/scooterists)?

<cynic> in your dreams </cycnic>

Party line is probably that cycling's it's own reward. Less dollars spent on transport, less dollars spent on health care etc etc. Seems to me that the more you look after yourself, the less you get back from society.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-10-27, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> TimC Wrote:
>> On 2005-10-27, Bleve (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> > Tim, you mentioned you had a number of incidents (not least of
>> > which was the nasty crash just prior to the RTB)
>> >
>> > The thing to always be asking yourself is "how could I have avoided
>> > the situation?". The horse has bolted from the stable, but you can
>> > still learn from it and do what you can to minimise your risk next
>> > time.
>>
>> I can learn from 3 of the 4 incidents in the past year. The first
>> two, is to just let the ******* pass, and not warn them that they are
>> about to run over you. Hmmm, not very satisfactory.
>
> With respect Tim, what the fsck are you talking about? it's better to
> be accident free and let dicks go about their business than to be in
> pain and in the right.
>
> There are plenty of occaisions where I yield when the person I'm
> yielding too has a duty of care to yield to me but doesn't. I find it
> a very satisfactory outcome that I can anticipate their errors and ride
> in safety.

Well, the first case was triggered by merely yelling "hey!" I could
have yielded (if I had somewhere to go), and yelled "hey!", and they
still would have gotten out of their vehicle and laid into me.

So who do you know it's safe to yell out "hey!" to, in an attempt to
get them to look next time, and who do you assume are out of their
heads on drugs, and so just keep out of their way and hope that they
don't run some little old granny off the road 100m down the track?

Clearly an anamolous case, but still.

--
TimC
Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
-- Robert Firth

 

[Peka]

See, every company I've worked for in the CBD offered parking spaces to senior employees who drove precisely from home to work via a major road during peak hour. So they could buy these spaces for their work
vehicles, and thereby encourage the senior employees to catch public
transport

Do you know how much those spaces cost? They're not cheap, which is why the execs get them. I'd guess the cost of those spaces would not make economical sense to a company even if it IS a better idea than giving them to the execs. Our CEO lets me park my motorbike next to his spot, there's just enough room. Makes me a very happy camper when I don't cycle in to work.

Seems to me that the more you look after yourself, the less you get back from society

True, but the more you look after yourself, the less you need from society

 

[Noons]

TimC wrote:
>
> Getting thrown up into the air, where some of the energy of the impact
> can be disippated without injury, and crashing to ground (and
> hopefully not getting run over by a truck following the impacting
> vehicle) can well be less harmful that absorpting all of the energy of
> impact in the few milliseconds it takes for an impact to happen.

I'm quite sure those with head injuries from hitting the ground
will agree with you...

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Noddy wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> You get that when you build on a 20,000 sq metre block, with a 25
>> metre minimum set-back. The house is 75 metres from the front fence.
>> I use ten litres to mow the front yard.

> I hope it's a ride on.

Yes, with a 38" cut. Still takes me four hours, but that's why MP3's were
invented.

Theo

 

[Kim Hawtin]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>>Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
>>>Resound wrote:
>>>>Go on, tell me I'm full of ****.
>>>
>>>No. What you stated isnt ****. Why did you take my comments so personal
>>>I wonder.
>>personnaly? ever been in a collision?
>>
>>
>>>You dont seem the type to try and spin conclusions off cherry
>>>picked results and then sweep the data under the mat -- as you've shown
>>>by showing some actaul data in your response.
>>>
>>>Pity you generalised about maintenance costs of a 4wd though and fuel
>>>consumption.
>>
>>costs a **** load more than my bike $500 total maintenance for 12
>>months for two bikes.
>>
>>
>>>My point is that those that rant and rave about these so called 4wds
>>>being unique killer machines cos you cant see out the back is flawed as
>>>there are plenty of cars that are worse than plenty of 4wds.
>>
>>stats are likely to be interpreted in *intersting ways*. 'nuf said.
>>
>>have you been cycling and hit by a large 4WD and left for dead on the
>>side of the road? hmmmm .. ?
>>
>>*all* of the collisisons i have had in the last twelve months, i have
>>been hit from behind or been hit while i was stationary at the lights
>>or been hit while riding in a bike lane.
>>
>>of those 11 times, 10 were from large 4WDs. all my cycling is commuting
>>from 6am-11am or 5pm-8pm weekdays. about 80% of my journey is in a bike
>>lane or a dedicated bike path. i follow the same road rules. indicate,
>>stop at lights and stop signs, the lot. even on my fixie. especially on
>>the fixie.
>
>
> Every time my 4WD has been hit it's been a car, so they must be defective
> vehicles, with less braking capability.

interesting theory small (european) cars actually have a lot more
braking capacity than are required. how the hell a lot of cars make
it past the ADRs is mind boggling.

>>>Having said that and to save you the trouble -- I can read and I can
>>>see that a 4wd is THE worst of all. But again, that doesnt negate my
>>>point.
>>
>>vehicular defects and design issues aside, the driver is responsible for
>>their actions. they can not hide from that. blaming the vehlice is their
>>own fault. they baught it, they're driving it. grow a backbone!
>>
>>
>>>Interesting that the landbruiser -- the one everyone loves to hate -- a
>>>variant of it (100 series) beat ALL of the large cars tested. 80 series
>>>didnt do to bad either.
>>
>>Prados count for 7 of the road abusers that that have hit me.
>>then a couple of pajeros, a landcruiser and a falcon.
>>interesting breakdown don't you think?
>
>
> So you've only been hit by cars in the last 6 years then, what happened
> previously?

not been in a position to cycle before that, for about
10+ years, then i had a number of close calls,
but never any collsions, much more rural area
and a lot less traffic.
4WDs weren't fashoinable then.

>>'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious offroading
>>myself
>>might have to find a Manx or summat.
>>maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...
>
>
> Yeah, bring an XC or Manx buggy "serious" offroading with us sometime, we'll
> come back for you at the end of the day, bring a trailer to take it home on.
>

i've seen 2WD kombis in places they couldn't get a landcruiser.
little thing called weight manx buggy weighs 600-800KG w/70HP.
you'd be stunned the difference that makes =P

the other thing is, i don't mind to get out and push from time to time.
i'm not a lazy fat ******* that needs oodles of horsepower to get my
lame **** around.

regards,

Kim
~ i might be a fat barstard. but thats changing

 

[Peka]

Well, the first case was triggered by merely yelling "hey!" I could have yielded (if I had somewhere to go), and yelled "hey!", and they
still would have gotten out of their vehicle and laid into me

Don't be afraid to wrap your frame pump around his head next time!

 

[TimC]

On 2005-10-27, Noons (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>>
>> Getting thrown up into the air, where some of the energy of the impact
>> can be disippated without injury, and crashing to ground (and
>> hopefully not getting run over by a truck following the impacting
>> vehicle) can well be less harmful that absorpting all of the energy of
>> impact in the few milliseconds it takes for an impact to happen.
>
> I'm quite sure those with head injuries from hitting the ground
> will agree with you...

Funny you should say that.

2 weeks ago, I demonstrated that the human head can survive a 2 metre
fall, combined with an arbitrary 30km/h vector addition (I assume that
vector was pointed mostly down, since my 30km/h horizontal would have
been translated to vertical when I went over the handlebars), taking
the entire weight of the body, and sliding along the ground for a few
metres. 2 metres plus 30 km/h directly down is equal to a fall from
5.5 metres, if I have done the physics correctly (that's an upper
limit, the lower limit if naturally 2 metres).

The results weren't pretty, but I was out of hospital within a couple
of days, and back on the bike within the week.

Most of my face has now healed. I can barely feel the broken nose,
the teeth are now almost set properly (still don't have an appointment
to get the splint out), the bruises have all gone, the outer layer of
stiches are out (the internal layer disintegrate by themselves), and
the fractures will heal by themselves, and aren't causing any
problems. The docs have told me "no contact sport for 8 weeks", but
that's hardly a problem -- cycling's not usually a contact sport

If you missed it, this was all the result of a very large 4WD turning
in front of me. So large that my handlebars fit under the front wheel
well (hence the instant stopage, and subsequent endo).

--
TimC
"This thesis brought to you by the letter tau" -- TimC

 

[D Walford]

Resound wrote:
> "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>dave wrote:
>>
>>>I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
>>>energy?
>>>
>>>Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
>>>too.
>>
>>I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
>>type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
>>PC brigade?
>>
>
>
> Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about the
> same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although they'll have
> a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets a bit of a
> double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of course, you'll
> be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that weighs more than
> 2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of physics. And there ain't
> nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics. They've been fiddling with those
> since the 18th century. Weren't you paying attention in high school?
>
>
You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has
bigger brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily
increased because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a
shorter distance than some much smaller cars.
Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a
4WD will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even
knows he needs to brake.




Daryl

 

[Peka]

>>'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious offroading
>>myself
>>might have to find a Manx or summat.
>>maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...
>
>
> Yeah, bring an XC or Manx buggy "serious" offroading with us sometime, we'll
> come back for you at the end of the day, bring a trailer to take it home on.
>

i've seen 2WD kombis in places they couldn't get a landcruiser.
little thing called weight manx buggy weighs 600-800KG w/70HP.
you'd be stunned the difference that makes =P

I've seen Manx's in action, both good and bad. The one my mate has, which I wish he would get back on the road (7 year repainting project ffs), was awesome. Tyres make a big difference too (as does the driver) and he certainly had that covered. It would put a lot of 4WD's to shame. On the other hand, the one we helped on Moreton was a piece of useless ****, and would be better used as a boat anchor. My bro-in-law's RAV performed better....

 

[Peka]

You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has bigger brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily
increased because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a
shorter distance than some much smaller cars.
Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a
4WD will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even
knows he needs to brake

Good points. A few people have been amazed at how quickly the Patrol can stop in the dirt (I've never needed to brake hard on the road in it). Weight balance is a big factor too - if all the weight is towards the front, the rear brakes will do bugger all. Ask anyone who's driven a ute with and without load.

Don't assume that better visibility equals quicker reaction time though - the driver still needs to be paying attention.

 

[D Walford]

Resound wrote:
> "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Resound wrote:
>>
>>>>>So exactly how would you suggest bulk goods are transported?
>>>>
>>>>In vehicles not driven by drug addicts.
>>>
>>>And those vehicle would be...?
>>
>>Who cares? Unlike the vociferous anti-4wders,
>>I don't blame types of vehicles. It's the drivers
>>that are the problem.
>
>
> "> > does that go for truckies as well?
>
>>Stupid comment. There is a legitimate, necessary reason for truckies to
>>sit
>
>
> Not so. It's got nothing to do with transport of goods
> anyway. As for the stupidity, ask that question of the
> hundreds of people all around Australia who have had a
> truckie drugged out of his brains drive ten tonnes of
> metal through their lifes."
>
> Ah, so you don't have a problem with trucks then. But anyone who drives one
> is obviously a drug addict.

Do you have to work hard at being an idiot or does it come naturally.
Only a very small percentage of truck driver take drugs.
The vast majority of truck drivers don't drive interstate or work long
hours.
On a per kilometre travelled basis trucks are by far the safest vehicles
on the road.




Daryl

 

[Rocatanski]

Take a look at the NRMA web site, Holden Commodores and Ford Falcons have a
low visibility rating than a 100 series Landcruiser, take the kids out of
the driveways.
"fasgnadh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brash wrote:
>> "Brash" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>The car accident that left the daughter of former Wallaby skipper Phil
>>>Kearns with life-threatening injuries has reignited demands for upgraded
>>>safety on four-wheel drives.
>>
>>
>> How about upgraded situational awareness for ALL drivers?
>
> How about tyargetting the biggest killers first.
>
> How about dealing with faulty owners of dangerous
> machinery that is involved
> in a disproportionate number of child fatalities...
>
> "I bought a 4WD for my families safety" - Pigs ****
>
>>
>>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
>>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
>>>Saturday.
>>
>>
>> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
>> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The
>> machines
>> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>>
>
> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
> two year old is standing behind it.
>
> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>
> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
>
> I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.
>
>
>>>"People buy them (4WDs) thinking they're safe, but they simply are not,"
>>>Mr Scruby said.
>
> http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15755676%
> 255E1702,00.html
>
> 4WD owners 'compensating'
> By David Crawshaw
> 28jun05
>
> FOUR-wheel drive owners will often tell you they chose their vehicles for
> safety reasons.
>
> But Pedestrian Council of Australia chairman Harold Scruby reckons it has
> less to do with safety and more to do with compensating for anatomical
> deficiencies.
>
> "There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
> because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.
>
> "The majority of drivers see (4WD owners) as aggressive and arrogant –
> it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
> sit above everyone else."
>
> Mr Scruby today called for the removal of tariff reductions for 4WDs as a
> study showed what many already suspected – that 4WDs are the most
> dangerous cars on the road.
>
> The Monash University study found 4WDs were far more likely than
> conventional vehicles to kill or maim other road users.
>
> Mr Scruby, who drives a Subaru Outback, said it was hard to tell to what
> degree the people driving 4WDs were responsible for the high injury
> rates, and how much was due to the physical nature of 4WDs.
>
> It was not really possible to improve safety for the occupants of one
> vehicle in a crash without compromising safety for the occupants of the
> other, he said.
>
> Mr Scruby called on the Federal Government to scrap tariff reductions on
> 4WD vehicles, and to apply lower tariffs to safer vehicles.
>
> People who genuinely needed 4WDs, such as those in remote areas, could be
> exempted from increased tariffs, he said.
>
> But elsewhere 4WDs should be "taxed off the road".
>
> "I don't think people in Mosman and Toorak should be getting these
> vehicles at 5-per-cent tax when a Corolla is taxed at 10 per cent," Mr
> Scruby said.
>
> He also took aim at young drivers in regional areas who drove souped-up
> utes often adorned with bullbars, aerials and stickers.
>
> "In the bush every young driver wants to drive a Holden ute with a
> bullbar," he said.
>
> "It's a testosterone thing, it's all about 'mine is bigger than yours'."
>
> NRMA vehicle policy expert Jack Haley said the high rate of injuries
> caused by 4WDs was due to the type of vehicle involved, not the behaviour
> of 4WD drivers.
>
> The same tariffs should be applied to all cars, Mr Haley said.
>

 

[Spear and Magic Helmet]

Rocatanski wrote:
> Take a look at the NRMA web site, Holden Commodores and Ford Falcons have a
> low visibility rating than a 100 series Landcruiser, take the kids out of
> the driveways.

Your raw facts are no match for the sheeple's spun stats taken from
cheery-picked data.

If there's one thing all these threads have proven its that.

 

[atec]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
>
>>"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>
>>>Mind you, I'd still be tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving
>>>the 4WD at home until the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I
>>>have a list of very good reasons to do so for anyone who's at all
>>>interested. Living 20-30km from work is no excuse either...that's how far
>>>most of us commute
>>>
>>>
>>You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>I was talking to some mates about that one, with respect to jobs where
>employees start in a central location each day (have to check in) and
>then head out to different places; rather than those who travel to jobs
>directly from home, and particularly people who are in the CBD. It would
>make so much more sense if the company provided the vehicles and people
>caught public transport to the CBD. It would save the company heaps of
>money and mean that employees didn't have to get up so damn early to
>beat the traffic and could sleep on their way to work. (This is a bit
>Brisbane specific, where we have separate road for buses. Woohoo!)
>
>Tam
>
>
Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
that direction ,

 

[Tamyka Bell]

atec wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> >Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >>>Mind you, I'd still be tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving
> >>>the 4WD at home until the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I
> >>>have a list of very good reasons to do so for anyone who's at all
> >>>interested. Living 20-30km from work is no excuse either...that's how far
> >>>most of us commute
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
> >>
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >I was talking to some mates about that one, with respect to jobs where
> >employees start in a central location each day (have to check in) and
> >then head out to different places; rather than those who travel to jobs
> >directly from home, and particularly people who are in the CBD. It would
> >make so much more sense if the company provided the vehicles and people
> >caught public transport to the CBD. It would save the company heaps of
> >money and mean that employees didn't have to get up so damn early to
> >beat the traffic and could sleep on their way to work. (This is a bit
> >Brisbane specific, where we have separate road for buses. Woohoo!)
> >
> >Tam
> >
> >
> Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
> that direction ,

I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
out west... a few hours...

Tam

 

[atec]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

>atec wrote:
>
>
>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Mind you, I'd still be tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving
>>>>>the 4WD at home until the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I
>>>>>have a list of very good reasons to do so for anyone who's at all
>>>>>interested. Living 20-30km from work is no excuse either...that's how far
>>>>>most of us commute
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I was talking to some mates about that one, with respect to jobs where
>>>employees start in a central location each day (have to check in) and
>>>then head out to different places; rather than those who travel to jobs
>>>directly from home, and particularly people who are in the CBD. It would
>>>make so much more sense if the company provided the vehicles and people
>>>caught public transport to the CBD. It would save the company heaps of
>>>money and mean that employees didn't have to get up so damn early to
>>>beat the traffic and could sleep on their way to work. (This is a bit
>>>Brisbane specific, where we have separate road for buses. Woohoo!)
>>>
>>>Tam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
>>that direction ,
>>
>>
>
>I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
>out west... a few hours...
>
>Tam
>
>
Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.
or in my case with 500 kg or tools and another 300kg or materials ..
thats going to be hard on a bus.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

atec wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> >atec wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Mind you, I'd still be tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving
> >>>>>the 4WD at home until the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I
> >>>>>have a list of very good reasons to do so for anyone who's at all
> >>>>>interested. Living 20-30km from work is no excuse either...that's how far
> >>>>>most of us commute
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>I was talking to some mates about that one, with respect to jobs where
> >>>employees start in a central location each day (have to check in) and
> >>>then head out to different places; rather than those who travel to jobs
> >>>directly from home, and particularly people who are in the CBD. It would
> >>>make so much more sense if the company provided the vehicles and people
> >>>caught public transport to the CBD. It would save the company heaps of
> >>>money and mean that employees didn't have to get up so damn early to
> >>>beat the traffic and could sleep on their way to work. (This is a bit
> >>>Brisbane specific, where we have separate road for buses. Woohoo!)
> >>>
> >>>Tam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
> >>that direction ,
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
> >out west... a few hours...
> >
> >Tam
> >
> >
> Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.
> or in my case with 500 kg or tools and another 300kg or materials ..
> thats going to be hard on a bus.

Right. So you ignored everything else I wrote. Cool.

 

[Resound]

"D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:43605e57$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Resound wrote:
>> "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
>>>>energy?
>>>>
>>>>Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
>>>>too.
>>>
>>>I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
>>>type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
>>>PC brigade?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about the
>> same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although they'll
>> have a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets a bit of
>> a double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of course,
>> you'll be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that weighs more
>> than 2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of physics. And there
>> ain't nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics. They've been fiddling
>> with those since the 18th century. Weren't you paying attention in high
>> school?
> You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has bigger
> brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily increased
> because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a shorter
> distance than some much smaller cars.
> Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
> Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
> increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a 4WD
> will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even knows
> he needs to brake.
>
>
>
>
> Daryl

Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably reluctant
to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded comparisons such as
"more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an
emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the tyres up to the point of
locking, that's all the braking you're going to get. Bigger brakes are great
for stopping hard repeatedly because they're effective heat sinks and heat
radiators. The real telling points are the type of tyres, brake bias and
amount of weight transfer. You're saying that a vehicle that's front heavy,
overweight, and driving on balloon like tyres designed to be a compromise
between offroad and onroad behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE? I suppose the
high centre of gravity and long travel suspension means that they corner
harder than a road car too. Wishful thinking won't make it so, no matter how
hard you screw up your eyes and promise Santa you'll be good.

 

[Resound]

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TimC wrote:
>>
>> Getting thrown up into the air, where some of the energy of the impact
>> can be disippated without injury, and crashing to ground (and
>> hopefully not getting run over by a truck following the impacting
>> vehicle) can well be less harmful that absorpting all of the energy of
>> impact in the few milliseconds it takes for an impact to happen.
>
> I'm quite sure those with head injuries from hitting the ground
> will agree with you...
>
Wheras those with head and torso injuries from going under a large vehicle
aren't able to agree or disagree.