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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"dave" <dave@jeack.notmorespam.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f4bb2$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>
>>
>>
>> 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.

Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared. So it varies
directly with mass and as the square of speed. You're right about turning
near misses into hits though.

[Ext User(Resound)]

> You try riding with tools to different job sites across the city everyday?
>
> Maybe the guy driving 30km per day in a Barina has left the 4WD home, then
> his wife drives it 50km a week to the shopping centre and it gets labelled
> killer machine of the highway.
>
>

I wouldn't even consider telling someone who works onsite and/or carries
their own tools to cycle commute. The whole point is about using the vehicle
appropriate for the purpose. The guy driving the Barina 30km/day has a
shorter commute than me. He should ride in and leave the Barina for his wife
to do the shopping in.

[Ext User(Noons)]

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.

> 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.

Obviously you have never been inside a
Sydney bus or train at peak hour...

> your sides and look around yourself like everyone else. The sane basic
> obligations apply on the road.

Of course. And it has nothing to do with the type
of car anyone drives. All to do with driver attitude.
Which I see no one from the vociferous group
complaining about. All we hear is "make them pay".
Instead of: "make them have proper training".
Which I'd rather consider a better option?

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

Agreed.

> 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

Pajero? Yeeeech....

> 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.

Of course, let's abstract the costs and inconvenience of
having to adjust my outing times to 15 times a year
I take the *oh-so-dangerous* RAV4 out nearly every second
weekend, that's around 25 times a year.
And the many times that I'd be told plainly: nope, none left.

Can we apply that to all cars as well? I'm sure an economic
case can be made to rent a car only for the essential
trips. After all, we can all rely on public transport
to go to work every day in NSW?

Why not a planned economy while we wait for the queues?
<rolling eyes...>

> 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.

Yes, they do. And its their money. And none of anyone
else's business. It's called a free market society.
Something that was voted in many times. Ding-ding?

> and onslaughts from drug addicts taking over the road transport system.

Really? Name one accident involving third party death
caused by truckies in NSW that didn't involve use of drugs
by the truck driver? Or at the very least gross irresponsibility?
"plots"? Why is it that the government of NSW in the last
ten years has closed every national park to 4wd users EXCEPT
the ones from organised 4wd tours? What, those don't cause
"damage" to tracks and the "environment"? Yeah! right...

It would be funny if it wasn't a frigging sad example
of corruption. Wake up.


> 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?

It does NOT make ONE little bit of difference! ANY vehicle
on the road MUCH heavier than a person WILL be lethal if it
hits said person. Get real with the "4wds kill people" nonsense!
ANY motor vehicle WILL kill people!

> 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?

Whoooot??....


> type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the insurance
> company.

No, it's because its repairs cost a bundle. Something that the
vociferous brigade tries to hide like heck, behind the
"no tariff" smokescreen nonsense.

> That's another one of your unemotional facts of life.

Yes. It's called "pay up". It's part of life. Get on with it.

> 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.

Who suggested dodging? I've been telling you it's what owners
pay NOW. While you keep clucking on about the "no tariff" bullshit
and the crap argument of "they should pay more".
THEY ALREADY DO!
Wake up and smell the roses, you do not have a CLUE
what a 4wd owner has to do!

[Ext User(Noons)]

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?

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:04:07 +1000, Birdman wrote:

> 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
>>

The whole point is that there is a blind-spot behind/beside/whatever
EVERY vehicle.
Getting down to basics, I can't think of any mainstream car that would
allow the driver to see a toddler adjacent to the rear wheels.
Seems to me the stylists have a shitload to answer for in their
permanent form over function wankfest.
Exceptions 'might' be video camera equipped machines and thinking
about it, I believe most truck mirrors actually allow the driver to
see the rear wheels - at least the 'outsides' of them.
Only recently have some manufacturers figured out that RV mirrors that
flip a few degrees downwards when reverse is selected might just be a
worthwhile safety feature. Fortunately they've ignored the fact that
this will be a grade A maintenance problem in 10 or so years time.
That's still the matter of the mirrors having to be augmented with
video for vision of objects close to and directly behind the machine.
There are 'home' design issues here too. Like cars and people having
to be separated, and having to be reversing through or out of a
property being just plain stupid design.
But the real deal is that no-one should attempt to move any vehicle if
there's ANY chance a person or any description could be in a position
of danger.
Yes Virginia, that includes little old ladies on Gophers on the
footpath.
Bloody hell, I even make people point at where dogs and kinder are if
I'm moving a car about near them. No I'm not paranoid - I just don't
like mowing stuff down with a bloody car, is all.



BTW even velocipedes quality as having piss-poor rear vision - the
real reason most don't have reverse gears :p


--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130333029.410573.86820@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> 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?

[Ext User(dave)]

Noons wrote:
> 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?
>

Ummmmm I dont get the point here. If its bigger and it hits you it will
hurt more. No? If its bigger its harder to dodge and does more damage
if you hit it. Am I wrong? Is this PC?

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:06:53 GMT, Noddy wrote:

> "John McKenzie" <jmac@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435F60EE.906@alphalink.com.au...
>
>> But would red hq and honda xr600 have met if god wanted you to keep
>> riding? Clearly god hates you, why else would he make you an xp fan....
>
> Lol :)
>
> If I had been on a Harley, it's more than likely that the HQ would have been
> totalled, and I wouldn't have been so badly smacked up :)

You wouldn't have been there yet, either.

--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-26, Toby Ponsenby (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> BTW even velocipedes quality as having piss-poor rear vision - the
> real reason most don't have reverse gears :p

I'm glad you qualified that with "most" :)

Nothing like watching someone cycle backwards around in circles on a
fixed gear bike.

--
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);

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-26, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Noons wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Ummmmm I dont get the point here. If its bigger and it hits you it will
> hurt more. No? If its bigger its harder to dodge and does more damage
> if you hit it. Am I wrong? Is this PC?

You also tend not to go over the bonnet of a larger 4WD like vehicle.
The bonnet goes through you (in Soviet Russia :). In a normal
vehicle, you may have a chance of going over the bonnet, which may end
up saving your life.

--
TimC
"If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."
-- Pitr Dubovich, User Friendly

[Ext User(dave)]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-26, Toby Ponsenby (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>BTW even velocipedes quality as having piss-poor rear vision - the
>>real reason most don't have reverse gears :p
>
>
> I'm glad you qualified that with "most" :)
>
> Nothing like watching someone cycle backwards around in circles on a
> fixed gear bike.
>

Motorcycle has reverse. Its called Kathy :)

bloody audio cd cadged from music dept as raw material for sound editing
assesment task turns out to be totally blank. I am not happy. Music
teacher would be well advised to start running now

Dave

[Ext User(Noons)]

Resound wrote:
> 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?

Actually, I was. Enough to figure out that my one ton
*oh-so-dangerous* RAV4 4WD "criminal" car is by
YOUR "lucid maths" inherently less dangerous by a large
facgtor than just about every other 4 door sedan sold in
Australia.

Now, do you still want to continue this CRAP line of argument?
It's easier to admit that like all the other vociferous boofheads
you don't have a CLUE as to what 4wds are or do...

[Ext User(dave)]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-26, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Noons wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>Ummmmm I dont get the point here. If its bigger and it hits you it will
>>hurt more. No? If its bigger its harder to dodge and does more damage
>>if you hit it. Am I wrong? Is this PC?
>
>
> You also tend not to go over the bonnet of a larger 4WD like vehicle.
> The bonnet goes through you (in Soviet Russia :). In a normal
> vehicle, you may have a chance of going over the bonnet, which may end
> up saving your life.
>


Same as.. Going over the bonnet counts as dodging.. (Well dodging the
bullet anyway)

[Ext User(Noons)]

dave wrote:
> Ummmmm I dont get the point here. If its bigger and it hits you it will
> hurt more. No? If its bigger its harder to dodge and does more damage
> if you hit it. Am I wrong? Is this PC?

It is when the "bigger" is equated with a SINGLE type
of vehicle to suit infantile lines of argument.

Just about any small truck onwards in size fits exactly
into the argument as exposed. Yet is never mentioned.
Yes, I am including things like lunch-boxes (hiaces) and
such. Why are those not mentioned by the "science" brigade?

Ah yes: they don't fit the envy-based mould of the
"toorak tractor". Some "science", indeed...

[Ext User(dave)]

Noons wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>>Ummmmm I dont get the point here. If its bigger and it hits you it will
>>hurt more. No? If its bigger its harder to dodge and does more damage
>>if you hit it. Am I wrong? Is this PC?
>
>
> It is when the "bigger" is equated with a SINGLE type
> of vehicle to suit infantile lines of argument.
>
> Just about any small truck onwards in size fits exactly
> into the argument as exposed. Yet is never mentioned.
> Yes, I am including things like lunch-boxes (hiaces) and
> such. Why are those not mentioned by the "science" brigade?
>
> Ah yes: they don't fit the envy-based mould of the
> "toorak tractor". Some "science", indeed...
>


Envy.... dream on

[Ext User(Aeek)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:28:53 +1000, Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> wrote:

>BTW even velocipedes quality as having piss-poor rear vision

Bicycles can have mirrors, hard to get flat(true) ones unless you want helmet mounted.
No visual restrictions on headchecking though.


AndreS.au ===> I ride therefore I am

[Ext User(Noons)]

TimC wrote:
>
> You also tend not to go over the bonnet of a larger 4WD like vehicle.
> The bonnet goes through you (in Soviet Russia :). In a normal
> vehicle, you may have a chance of going over the bonnet, which may end
> up saving your life.

Another "scientific" conclusion, of course...
What happens when the "normal" vehicle's bonnet throws
you in the air and onto incoming traffic or you land
on your back on the tarmac? Ah yes, but that doesn't
fit the rosy argument, does it?

Of course, the bonnet is less harmful than
the "criminal" 4wd and can't possibly harm
a person: must be that square of the weight
maths/physics striking again...

jeezz....

[Ext User(Noons)]

dave wrote:
>
> Envy.... dream on

Oh yeah? So why is the "toorak tractor"
line ALWAYS invoked by these lunatics?
THEIR words, not mine!

Oldest trick in the book. Get real.

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-26, Noons (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>>
>> You also tend not to go over the bonnet of a larger 4WD like vehicle.
>> The bonnet goes through you (in Soviet Russia :). In a normal
>> vehicle, you may have a chance of going over the bonnet, which may end
>> up saving your life.
>
> Another "scientific" conclusion, of course...
> What happens when the "normal" vehicle's bonnet throws
> you in the air and onto incoming traffic or you land
> on your back on the tarmac? Ah yes, but that doesn't
> fit the rosy argument, does it?

Well, it's happened before, so by the "scientific" method of quote
"experimentation" unquote, yes...

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.

--
TimC
One hundred hairy bugs in the code, one hundred hairy bugs....Fix one
bug, compile it again, 101 hairy bugs. Repeat until BUGS = 0. --unknown

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130332929.628822.120080@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> 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. Not that it's a property of the vehicle or
anything. So is there a difference between truck drivers and drivers of
trucks or is it only truckies? Are you saying or not saying that anyone who
drives a truck is a particular type of person? Because by extension that
would imply that there are certain types of people who choose to drive
certain types of vehicles. Such as 4WDs. Or are you perhaps just disagreeing
with anyone who raises concepts that you find challenging? Gawd, it's like a
pingpong ball in a paint mixer.


>
>> 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.
>
> Obviously you have never been inside a
> Sydney bus or train at peak hour...
>
>> your sides and look around yourself like everyone else. The sane basic
>> obligations apply on the road.
>
> Of course. And it has nothing to do with the type
> of car anyone drives. All to do with driver attitude.
> Which I see no one from the vociferous group
> complaining about. All we hear is "make them pay".
> Instead of: "make them have proper training".
> Which I'd rather consider a better option?
>
>> Yeah, I know that. Let's see if I can't make it a little more clear...why
>> line ANYONE'S pockets?
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 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
>
> Pajero? Yeeeech....
>

Well I don't like 'em either, but it was the first "full size" thing that
appeared.

>> 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.
>
> Of course, let's abstract the costs and inconvenience of
> having to adjust my outing times to 15 times a year
> I take the *oh-so-dangerous* RAV4 out nearly every second
> weekend, that's around 25 times a year.
> And the many times that I'd be told plainly: nope, none left.

RAV4, is it? While it fared pretty poorly in the rearward visibility stakes
which would make it an issue in the backing over toddler stakes, it's not
exactly the 2½ ton thumper that really irritates me when used as a commuter.
At 25 times per year (every fortnight, is it?) you're clearly using it
pretty fully as an offroad vehicle, which, as I've said before makes a
difference. It's the twonks who buy one as an urban commuter presenting all
of the dangers and none of the benefits who need to seriously re-evaluate
their priorities.

>
> Can we apply that to all cars as well? I'm sure an economic
> case can be made to rent a car only for the essential
> trips. After all, we can all rely on public transport
> to go to work every day in NSW?
>

Plenty of people here do. My girlfriend and I have one car between us. It
leaves the driveway about once every 2-3 weeks.

> Why not a planned economy while we wait for the queues?
> <rolling eyes...>
>

Oh, of course, we're all up for command economies here. Pfeh. Personal
responsibility for one's choices and actions is a great thing.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem incapable of looking beyond their own
immediate gratification. That's why we have laws. Smacking people who can't
work and play well with others is part of the judicial system.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, they do. And its their money. And none of anyone
> else's business. It's called a free market society.
> Something that was voted in many times. Ding-ding?

So it's all personal choice then? Why are you complaining?

>
>> and onslaughts from drug addicts taking over the road transport system.
>
> Really? Name one accident involving third party death
> caused by truckies in NSW that didn't involve use of drugs
> by the truck driver? Or at the very least gross irresponsibility?

"A high proportion of heavy truck fatal crashes are head on crashes (first
impact type) (40%).
In the vast majority of these, the vehicle on the wrong side of the road is
not the heavy truck."
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/heavyvehicles/downloads/hv_issuesandcountermeasures_execsum.rtf

" Analysis of the same database for 1988, 1990 and 1992 showed that fatigue
was involved in 5 to 10% of fatal semi-trailer crashes"
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/fatigue.html

Yep...clearly all drug related.

> "plots"? Why is it that the government of NSW in the last
> ten years has closed every national park to 4wd users EXCEPT
> the ones from organised 4wd tours? What, those don't cause
> "damage" to tracks and the "environment"? Yeah! right...
>
> It would be funny if it wasn't a frigging sad example
> of corruption. Wake up.
>

Ok, that one I don't have the knowledge to address. Maybe they found that
the organised tours stick to the tracks and don't trash the general area as
much. Don't bother rebutting that one, it's speculation with no basis in
fact.

>
>> 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?
>
> It does NOT make ONE little bit of difference! ANY vehicle
> on the road MUCH heavier than a person WILL be lethal if it
> hits said person. Get real with the "4wds kill people" nonsense!
> ANY motor vehicle WILL kill people!
>

Increased stopping distance makes no difference? I'm sure that not hitting
someone by stopping in time does substantially less damage than hitting
someone because you couldn't stop in time.

>> 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?
>
> Whoooot??....
>

Ok. Little words. Higher risk is the SAME as higher probability of bad
things happening. The studies that you say are bullshit say some bad things
happen MORE OFTEN with 4WDs than conventional cars. Not speculation. Not
theory. Observed, recorded, tabulated, unemotional FACT. The difference is
enough that this isn't just luck. This isn't fuzzy reasoning. Some
differences fall into the "well duh" catagory, others fall into the "well
who'd'a thunk?" catagory. Both types are equally real. Wishful thinking
won't make it otherwise. This is based on what happens in the real world
otherwise it WOULD be shonky science.

>
>> type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the
>> insurance
>> company.
>
> No, it's because its repairs cost a bundle. Something that the
> vociferous brigade tries to hide like heck, behind the
> "no tariff" smokescreen nonsense.
>

It's a heavy vehicle and therefore hits things harder. That's your basic
Newtonian physics at work again. remember high school? Oh, and rego is
higher because of TAC premiums. That's got nothing to do with vehicle
repairs, it's entirely based on hospitalisation costs. In other words, if
you're paying a higher TAC premium, it's because that type of vehicle is
more prone to injuring people. And you're right "you pay rego/insurance
EVERY year.". That's because every year, the TAC has to pay that amount out
for hospitalisation costs for each and every registered vehicle.

>> That's another one of your unemotional facts of life.
>
> Yes. It's called "pay up". It's part of life. Get on with it.

Again, it wasn't me moaning about it.

>
>> 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.
>
> Who suggested dodging? I've been telling you it's what owners
> pay NOW. While you keep clucking on about the "no tariff" bullshit
> and the crap argument of "they should pay more".
> THEY ALREADY DO!
> Wake up and smell the roses, you do not have a CLUE
> what a 4wd owner has to do!
>

Ok, so when you said "They already are taxed higher. Let's stop the
ludicrous envy blame game." you weren't talking about tariffs or sales tax,
you were talking about...?