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

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by fasgnadh, Oct 24, 2005.

  1. Noddy

    Noddy Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > 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.

    I'd also be having a mini bike to get the mail :)

    > In the garage so I don't have to reverse anywhere?


    Yeah. Sounds like you've got the room.

    > I no longer have kids at home so only have to worry about running over the
    > chooks. Even they are smart enough to get out of the way.


    Unlike cats that enjoy sleeping on a warm engine :)

    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.
     


  2. Noddy

    Noddy Guest

    "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Well you've seen how we dress, right?


    Yeah, I have, and I've always found it strange.

    I mean, is there some unwritten law somewhere that states week-end bike
    riders *must* get dressed up like a packet of licorice allsorts, or is it
    just because they're "special"? :)

    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.
     
  3. Noddy

    Noddy Guest

    "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Ok I lost sight of the "banning vehicles" concept because I never really
    > advocated it myself to start with. I was approaching it more from an
    > "oversized vehicles are a bloody menace and this is one reason why" point
    > of view. I hopped into this particular thread because it's much more
    > rewarding and productive to discuss this with people who sit on the other
    > side of the fence. When this sort of thread appears on aus.bicycle we
    > preach to the converted, pat each other on the back and continue as we
    > were. It's all very cathartic but doesn't really achieve much.


    That sums up newsgroups pretty well :)

    > More specific to what you were saying, I don't recall using the term
    > "sedan". If I did, it wasn't meant to be a focal term.


    It wasn't directed at you personally, but the anti-4wd club in general.

    "Sedan" is an often quoted alternative to a 4wd, yet it's about as equally
    descriptive as "4wd" in terms of describing particular vehicles.

    > My point was that in the context of the study in question, the Commodore
    > was an aberration with regards to other passenger cars and rearward
    > visibility and therefore to point at it and say "Look...it's a car and
    > it's MUCH worse than plenty of 4WDs!" is not particularly relevant.
    > Someone (Birdman, I think) took an example which happens to perform
    > exceptionally badly in this test and then held it up as being generally
    > representitive of the type. It's clearly not and therefore, in this
    > instance and for the purposes of this discussion and more specifically the
    > point being made at the time it's an aberration and so, by definition,
    > *not normal*.


    I certainly agree that it's an exception in the main, however it *does* show
    that "sedans" aren't the be all and end all in this regard.

    I also mentioned in another post that I don't find the Falcon to be any
    better, and would also suggest that rear visibility is as much a driver
    dependant thing as the vehicle itself.

    > *inhales*
    >
    > By most other criteria it's a pretty normal car, if something of an
    > unnecessarily fat bastard. We're the only western country in the world
    > other than the US which thinks that a 1500kg+ car is "normal". It's bloody
    > well not.


    Lol :)

    I agree entirely.

    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.
     
  4. Noddy

    Noddy Guest

  5. dave

    dave Guest

    Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
    > dave wrote:
    >
    >>You either look for bikes and see em.
    >>Or you don;t and don;t

    >
    >
    > Just like you either look for 4WDers driving with due courtesy/manners
    > and see em, or you don't and don't. :)
    >


    truesy We dont notice the good ones. Its just the way it is

    But on this subject we were down at chapel st last night. Watched Ms
    Rav4.. do a u turn.. screw it up.. nearly back into a tram. Then drive
    right over the footpath 3 wheels onto it.. before parking. I was a tad
    slow remembering I had a camera. I would have taken the pic and posted
    it here.

    THe thought of that person with a licence has to worry anyone surely.
    On the other hand it was off road I suppose. And as far off road as
    that particular Rav4 is ever likely to get.

    Dave
     
  6. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Noddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >> Well you've seen how we dress, right?

    >
    > Yeah, I have, and I've always found it strange.
    >
    > I mean, is there some unwritten law somewhere that states week-end bike
    > riders *must* get dressed up like a packet of licorice allsorts, or is it
    > just because they're "special"? :)
    >

    It's a combination of comfort (chafing is BAD, especially over a period of
    hours) and being as visible as possible. Trust me, I don't wear lycra to
    look good. I'm resisting the wrap around sunnies, but I've blinked just in
    time to have insects etc bounce off my eyelids an awful lot, so it'll
    probably happen. Black lycra knicks are sort of a leftover from when leather
    saddles used to be all that was available and would stain anything that was
    any other colour. It also helps avoid a degree of transparency with wear,
    which nobody wants.
     
  7. Noddy

    Noddy Guest

  8. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Noons" <[email protected].com.au> 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...?

    >> Specious. "Landcruiser" is a generic term in that context and you know
    >> it.
    >> Substitute any large 4WD.

    >
    > No. The claims are on "4WD"s, no specifics. And you
    > know it perfectly well.
    >


    That was rather my point. Ok, the word "Landcruiser" should not have been
    used in that context as the intent was generic.

    >
    >> It's still demonstrates a mentality that says "screw you, I'm ok".

    >
    > So what? Oh, you are a charity promoter now? What,
    > you wanna tell me this is not what this society has turned to?
    > Yeah. Right...
    >


    No, I'm someone who actually recognises the fact that we all live in a
    community, not a series of opportunities for personal gain with no
    responsibilities to anyone else. To suggest that you shouldn't be held
    accountable for your choices and actions would be laughable if it wasn't
    disturbing. You wouldn't (I hope) wander through a crowd holding your elbows
    up at face height and suggest that anyone who happens to walk into your
    elbows should have watched where they were going. No, you keep your hands by
    your sides and look around yourself like everyone else. The sane basic
    obligations apply on the road.

    >
    >> Whether
    >> it's illegal or not doesn't mean that it's not reprehensible.

    >
    > Which makes it something to bark about and make illegal,
    > isn't it? In character...
    >
    >
    >> As opposed to lining the pockets of banks and oil companies?

    >
    > So does ANYONE buying ANY car. Get a clue!
    >


    Yeah, I know that. Let's see if I can't make it a little more clear...why
    line ANYONE'S pockets?

    >
    >> Yeah, I can see
    >> that car rental companies are certainly the sorts of businesses that
    >> you'd
    >> want to spend thousands of dollars per year to actively deny business to.

    >
    > YES! And it's not car rental companies. It's the tourist
    > rental mob who is the one behind all this crap.
    >


    So yes, you would want to actively deny car rental companies business (and
    put yourself out of pocket to do so) and it's not them it's the the "tourist
    rental mob" (ass opposed to car rental companies) who are behind some crap
    or another. I'll remember not to rent any tourists in the future. Now, about
    car rental. Through Thrifty (I didn't look very hard...first rental company
    I looked at) you can get a large 4WD (Pajero in this instance although the
    fleet listing includes Landcruisers and others) for $95/day. On the savings
    between a small car and a large 4WD in fuel alone over the year, you can
    rent a large 4WD for close to a fortnight. That doesn't take into account
    the savings on maintenance, that exhorbitant registration fee you were
    moaning about before and all the other dreadful burdens offroad vehiocle
    owners apparently have to bear.

    >
    >> There's that black and white thinking again.

    >
    > It's called logic. Something you should try.
    > Instead of emotional crap.
    >


    Hey, I'm not the one talking about "tourist rental mob" conspiracy theories
    and onslaughts from drug addicts taking over the road transport system.

    >
    >> Actually, most studies of this
    >> nature are going to wind up talking about probabilities.

    >
    > Which completely shows them for what they are: hoaxes
    > masquerading as "science" based claims.
    >
    >> look at what skews the stats. Statistics involve probabilities. In other
    >> words a 4WD isn't definitely going to crush a small child or kill a
    >> pedestrian or main or kill the occupants of another vehicle in a
    >> collision
    >> by the mere fact of its existance, but it's far more likely to than a
    >> conventional vehicle.

    >
    > No it's not. Get real. ANY vehicle with a mass greater
    > than 5 times that of a pedestrian WILL seriously maim
    > that pedestrian at any speed. It's got absolutely NOTHING
    > to do with how many wheels drive that vehicle. And
    > the rest of your "studies" are total BULLSHIT.
    >


    Ooh, hide in denial, it's safe and warm. Double the mass of the vehicle,
    double its stopping distance, how's that for a hard unemotional fact? Double
    the mass, double the kinetic energy delivered at impact, even assuming the
    same impact speed, there's another. If you think probabilities are all crap,
    take a quick drive up the wrong side of the freeway...you won't DEFINITELY
    hit anything, it's only a probability increase that you will, so you you'll
    be perfectly safe right?

    Right?

    >
    >> What pair of arse cheeks did you pluck that from between? Tariffs on
    >> passenger motor vehicles is 10%, tariffs on light commercial and 4WD
    >> vehicles is 5%. Sales tax and luxury vehicle tax is applied equally
    >> regardless of whether the vehicle is a 4WD or not.

    >
    > Have you tried to register/insure a 4WD for a change? Try reality,
    > it's a lot better than your emotional crap. And the tired
    > old tariff bullshit: you pay the tariff once, you pay rego/insurance
    > EVERY year.
    >


    Insurance companies (including the TAC) don't make actuarial tables up out
    of thin air, they base them on claims made against them. If your vehicles
    type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the insurance
    company. That's another one of your unemotional facts of life. Says
    something, doesn't it? Whether you think that's another conspiracy or not,
    see my previous point about dodging those nasty unfair burdens of 4WD
    ownership.
     
  9. dave

    dave Guest


    >
    >
    > Ooh, hide in denial, it's safe and warm. Double the mass of the vehicle,
    > double its stopping distance, how's that for a hard unemotional fact? Double
    > the mass, double the kinetic energy delivered at impact, even assuming the
    > same impact speed,



    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.


    >
    > Insurance companies (including the TAC) don't make actuarial tables up out
    > of thin air, they base them on claims made against them. If your vehicles
    > type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the insurance
    > company. That's another one of your unemotional facts of life. Says
    > something, doesn't it? Whether you think that's another conspiracy or not,
    > see my previous point about dodging those nasty unfair burdens of 4WD
    > ownership.
    >
    >
     
  10. mogulhead

    mogulhead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    You square the velocity. Double the velocity you quadruple the kinetic energy. Double the mass and you double the kinetic energy.
     
  11. "Kim Hawtin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
    >> Resound wrote:
    >> > Go on, tell me I'm full of shit.

    >>
    >> No. What you stated isnt shit. 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 shit 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.

    >> 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?

    > '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.
    :)
     
  12. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-10-26, Resound (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    > "Noddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>> Well you've seen how we dress, right?

    >>
    >> Yeah, I have, and I've always found it strange.
    >>
    >> I mean, is there some unwritten law somewhere that states week-end bike
    >> riders *must* get dressed up like a packet of licorice allsorts, or is it
    >> just because they're "special"? :)
    >>

    > It's a combination of comfort (chafing is BAD, especially over a period of
    > hours) and being as visible as possible. Trust me, I don't wear lycra to
    > look good. I'm resisting the wrap around sunnies, but I've blinked just in
    > time to have insects etc bounce off my eyelids an awful lot, so it'll
    > probably happen. Black lycra knicks are sort of a leftover from when leather
    > saddles used to be all that was available and would stain anything that was
    > any other colour. It also helps avoid a degree of transparency with wear,
    > which nobody wants.


    And frankly, have you ever seen white, red, or blue knicks? *Really*
    bad.


    Mostly comfort. I rode in jeans or shorts, and shirts until a bit
    over a year ago. I also rode with seat too low, with too low a
    pedalling cadence, and all the other not-to-dos.

    Interesting that all of these things I was doing wrong (incidentally,
    what most recreational riders do wrong) were fixed at all roughly the
    same time, despite the fact that I had been commuting daily for 7
    years.

    So now, when ever I go for a quick ride, and getting changed is too
    much of an effort, or worse, impractical (no changing facilities at
    the end), then after a minute, I really remember just how bad it is to
    ride in civilian clothes.

    --
    TimC
    Examples of valid code in PL/1 (courtesy many people)
    if if = then then then = else; else else = if;
    do do = by by to to while while(until) until(end);
     
  13. "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
    >> dave wrote:
    >>
    >>>You either look for bikes and see em.
    >>>Or you don;t and don;t

    >>
    >> Just like you either look for 4WDers driving with due courtesy/manners
    >> and see em, or you don't and don't. :)

    >
    > truesy We dont notice the good ones. Its just the way it is
    >
    > But on this subject we were down at chapel st last night. Watched Ms
    > Rav4.. do a u turn.. screw it up.. nearly back into a tram. Then drive
    > right over the footpath 3 wheels onto it.. before parking. I was a tad
    > slow remembering I had a camera. I would have taken the pic and posted it
    > here.
    >
    > THe thought of that person with a licence has to worry anyone surely. On
    > the other hand it was off road I suppose. And as far off road as that
    > particular Rav4 is ever likely to get.
    >
    > Dave


    But the same driver would have done the same thing in a Falcodore, so why
    blame the vehicle? Or maybe it wouldn't been noticed.
     
  14. "D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected].com.au...
    > Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >> fasgnadh wrote:
    >>
    >>>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.

    >>
    >> According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD 20
    >> metres, Commodore 17 metres.

    >
    > What is a large 4WD?
    > If they can name a Charade and Commodore which are very different vehicle
    > why use a generic term like "large 4WD", 20mts becomes a meaningless
    > number if its supposedly applies to all 4WD's.
    > "Large 4WD" is a term that encompasses a very big variety of makes and
    > models proving that whoever comes up with this crap has NFI.
    > Too bad they only mention examples which match their prejudices, why would
    > they ignore the very poor rear visibility from a Toyota Corolla hatch
    > which is much worse than a Toyota Hilux.
    >
    > Daryl


    They must have used a Suburban with 5foot driver
     
  15. Resound wrote:
    > "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
    > >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
    > >>less visibility."
    > >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

    > >
    > >
    > >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
    > >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
    > >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.

    > >
    > > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
    > > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

    >
    > Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum distance
    > at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle from
    > the driver's seat, yes.


    Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
    After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
    totally pointless your idea.
     
  16. Resound wrote:
    > "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
    > >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
    > >>less visibility."
    > >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

    > >
    > >
    > >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
    > >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
    > >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.

    > >
    > > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
    > > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

    >
    > Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum distance
    > at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle from
    > the driver's seat, yes.


    Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
    After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
    totally pointless your idea.
     
  17. Resound wrote:
    > "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
    > >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
    > >>less visibility."
    > >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

    > >
    > >
    > >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
    > >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
    > >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.

    > >
    > > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
    > > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

    >
    > Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum distance
    > at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle from
    > the driver's seat, yes.


    Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
    After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
    totally pointless your idea.
     
  18. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Resound wrote:
    >> "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
    >> >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
    >> >>less visibility."
    >> >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
    >> >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
    >> >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.
    >> >
    >> > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
    >> > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

    >>
    >> Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum
    >> distance
    >> at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle
    >> from
    >> the driver's seat, yes.

    >
    > Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
    > After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
    > totally pointless your idea.


    You've said that 3 times already
     
  19. Resound

    Resound Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Resound wrote:
    >> "Birdman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
    >> >>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
    >> >>less visibility."
    >> >> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
    >> >>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
    >> >>vehicles and gave them a star rating.
    >> >
    >> > ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
    >> > other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

    >>
    >> Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum
    >> distance
    >> at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle
    >> from
    >> the driver's seat, yes.

    >
    > Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
    > After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
    > totally pointless your idea.
    >


    "child sized object" def. Object the size of a child.

    Yeah ok, if you want to get picky, the size of kids most at risk, that is,
    the smallest, Call it 70cm. tall. Tell me, are you actually capable of
    making points without primary school level insults? "dumb bum"...how
    spectacularly inventive. It'll be "smelly poo head" next.
     
  20. Birdman

    Birdman Guest

    or an 80 series with the heavy duty lift in the rear only..

    cause theres no way known to man theres a 20mtr blind spot behind
    mine, or wifes pathfinder...

    >They must have used a Suburban with 5foot driver
    >
     
Loading...
Loading...