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

[Ext User(Birdman)]

Trikes and leadwings do :)
>Motorcycle has reverse.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435f8152$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> 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.

Maybe he has dicky knees like me, my cycling distance is limited, and no
they don't get better the harder you work them.

[Ext User(dave)]

Birdman wrote:
> Trikes and leadwings do :)
>
>>Motorcycle has reverse.


And a very few others, amazonas for one..

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1fl3380jxwxz5$.1mbsk9ff1ikh9$.dlg@40tude.net. ..

> You wouldn't have been there yet, either.

Mine was faster than the Honda, but there wasn't much in it :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-26, Rainbow Warrior (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435f8152$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Maybe he has dicky knees like me, my cycling distance is limited, and no
> they don't get better the harder you work them.

Now seems a perfect time to dispense some gratuitous advice :)

You *may* (not necessarily) find that the dickey knees[1] aren't a
problem if you get fitted properly.

I realise that you already ride a bit, but this isn't necessarily a
sign that you are fitted correctly. It took me 7 years of daily
commuting before I found out that I had it all horribly wrong. Been
much more comfortable/fast since.


[1] I'm pretty sure I got bored of Hey Hey It's Saturday towards the
latter years, but the replays last weekend sure brought back some
memories :)

--
TimC
Some witty text here,
can be any number of lines
long

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Birdman wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you shouldn't hang out in those sorts of areas.
> Sorry if driving on the road is an issue, or shopping centers, or

I meant lower socio-economic burbs. But given your misinterpretation,
indicating a poor education, perhaps it's appropriate.

> > You might meet some educated women elsewhere. My experience with women drivers is that they are about on par with men,
> LMAO..

Wouldn't have to laugh it off if you didn't sit on it all day instead of
moving it ;)

> > The makeup one is the only one I've seen. Also I'd say I see more women texting while driving.
> The defence rests.

You should put a <snip> in where you've cut stuff out, rather than
deliberately moving context. Even trolls know how to do that.

The remainder of my statement was that I see more men talking on phones
and more women texting. I have never been nearly-killed by a woman
driver. I've been nearly run over while standing in my driveway by a
male talking on a phone.

> > The parking one is interesting. I've never had a problem, but I guess it depends on who taught you how, because I've seen some shockers.
>
> The defence rests.

I still don't see how that supports your case, but I suppose the effort
of typing has worn you out. You deserve a rest.

Tam

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435f1db0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
<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

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

TimC wrote:
>
> 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.

Ssssh TimC, you should know that physics has nothing at all to do with
explaining energy matters... etc... and what would we know about physics
anyway?

Tam

[Ext User(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...

[Ext User(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

[Ext User(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

[Ext User(Kim Hawtin)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>>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.

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 bastard that needs oodles of horsepower to get my
lame arse around.

regards,

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

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Resound wrote:
> "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?
>
>
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

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Resound wrote:
> "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.

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

[Ext User(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" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
> Brash wrote:
>> "Brash" <trooper1962@hotmail.SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:435b5755$0$10998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>>>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 Arse
>
>>
>>>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.
>

[Ext User(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.

[Ext User(atec)]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
>
>>"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>news:435f1db0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>
><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 ,

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

atec wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> >Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>news:435f1db0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>
> >>
> ><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

[Ext User(atec)]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

>atec wrote:
>
>
>>Tamyka Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:435f1db0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>><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.

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

atec wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> >atec wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:435f1db0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>><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.