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

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

Resound wrote:
> "Birdman" <myknickersfu_kew@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p1m1m11lf976cnuluv0rjlu0bq1pmmbm2f@4ax.com...
>>> Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an emergency stopping
>>> situation.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>> You have lost all credibility.
>
> Did you read the rest of that? Tell exactly how retarding a wheel
> beyond the point of lockup stops the vehicle faster. Yes, bigger
> brakes are a good thing but only with regards to cooling.

Bullshit. They also give you finer control over the braking force applied.
You can brake with more control *before* the wheel locks up.

Try it with an electric motor with a pulley on it. Power the motor up and
try to stop it spinning by pushing your finger onto the pulley close to the
spindle. Now try the same thing but press near the outside of the pulley.
You have a lot more control with a larger diameter disc.


--
Kwyj

[Ext User(Euan)]

>>>>> "Noons" == Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> writes:

Noons> Euan wrote:
>> >>>>> "Noons" == Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>>
Noons> TimC wrote:
>> >> The results weren't pretty, but I was out of hospital within a
>> >> couple of days, and back on the bike within the week.
>>
Noons> All that proves is that your head is thick as a brick... :)
>> >> 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).
>>
Noons> Ah yes: of course. You hit a vehicle manouvering in front of
Noons> you and the fault is the vehicle's.
>> Not in front, alongside. It's quite common for one vehicle to be
>> alongside another. Not so clear cut, is it?

Noons> don't look now, but I read above "in front of me". Does that
Noons> now mean "alongside"?

If the front wheel of a bicycle is level with the middle of a car and
the car turns in front of the bicycle, then yes the car is alongside the
bicycle.

Remember it is legal for a bicycle to overtake on the inside. Not
always the most sensible course but it is legal. The driver of the
other vehicle deviated from his course with no indication and no warning
so in this instance it's clearly the driver's fault.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Rainbow Warrior" <pizza@sbs.com.fr> wrote in message
news:F8D7f.955$Hj2.32@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Plodder" <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:435eba1b$0$8623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > <wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130242750.987089.98340@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> >> some dole bludging wannabe calling itself faggy arse pissed and moaned,
> >> farted, shit its pants and blurted out:
> >> > **** all of any use to Australian road users.
> >>
> >> Try again, faggoty arse, after you stop your juvenile dummy spit and
> >> try using coherent English.
> >>
> >> There's a shrink term for you, you little mildewed weasel, something
> >> like "penis envy." You don't have what others have so you dream up all
> >> the excuses under the sun why they should not have what they do have.
> >> It won't work, ****face. Your pissy little left wing wanking will not
> >> change anything. Those of us who own and use four wheel drives will
> >> continue to do s, for work and/or for recreation, in spite of the
> >> impotent ravings of fools like you and that ****wit scruby. Just in
> >> case you're wondering, little skate board dole bludger, I own two four
> >> wheel drives, and have five more on lease, all five are somewhere up in
> >> the Gulf of Carpentaria carrying full loads of tourists. And here's the
> >> kicker, little boy, all five are earning me a shitload of cash.
> >
> > Hey! Good spray!
> > I wonder about it though. I haven't seen anyone griping about 4WDs used
> > for
> > their intended purpose. What I do see, though, is 4WD owners getting all
> > defensive when someone questions their toys. Seems to support what the
> > articles say...
> >
> > Frank
>
> Funny enough car owners also get defensive when their toys are questioned.
> Seems to support all the hoon articles by your logic.

Agreed, but this thread isn't about the hoons, it's about 4WDs not being
used for their purpose. As I've stated in other threads, I've owned 4WDs
when I've needed them. Now I live in the burbs I can't for the life of me
see why I need a 2 1/2 tonne 'Cruiser to get my shopping home. No argument
with 4WDers using their vehicles off-road, even just occasionally.
Defensiveness gets up my nose in general. That includes those who get
defensive about their cars, bikes, 4WDs or their choice of dog - I don't
care - it's the defensive wall that bugs me.

WRT hoons: Yep, I do think their actions (hooning) shows a lack of
self-respect, reflected in the lack of respect they show other people in the
community. Lack of self-respect seems to go hand-in-hand with a defensive
attitude so I reckon you're right. I used to enjoy the odd
burnout/donut/hooning session myself but we did it on clear, quiet country
roads, well away fom any dwellings, where we didn't bother anyone else. The
dickweeds who show me no respect by hooning where they risk others, not just
themselves, get up my nose.

> You expect us to join in on the 4WD bashing sessions, if we didn't reply
you
> would all be in a fairy land where you believed no one used them offroad,
> because we can fool you all with a quick wash at carlovers.

Bollox. Never found a car wash that could get my fourbys as pristine as the
ones I'm referring to unless I spend more time cleaning than 4WDing. I
reckon anyone who does put in the effort to get their toy so pristinely
clean has bigger issues than we can cover here! That includes bikes, by the
way :-)

Frank

[Ext User(Plodder)]

<wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130323825.374129.89940@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Plonker wrote:
> >
> > I wonder about it though. I haven't seen anyone griping about 4WDs used
for
> > their intended purpose.
>
> Oh yeah, I also drive my fourbie to town, complete with STEEL bullbar.
>
> > What I do see, though,
>
> You can't see anything through your squinty little eyes.
>
> is 4WD owners getting all
> > defensive when someone questions their toys.
>
> Point of order, **** face, my fourbies are not "toys," they are TOOLS,
> just as important to my income earning capacity as is a chainsaw to a
> timber cutter or a soldering iron to a radio technician.

Fine - what's your gripe? It should be abundantly clear that nobody's
complaining about fourbies used as they are intended. If you can't see that
then my biggest concern is that you're allowed outside without a keeper.

Frank

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f3557$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435f1dea$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > 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.

As a long-time MTBer I have to agree with you (here we go- MTB vs roadies!)
I look like an egg in an egg cup in lycra, so I wear cycling shorts. I've
never seen the need to lycra up - I frighten old ladies and small children!
I also commute in a polo shirt or similar. No need for the tight stuff - my
body's as aerodynamic as a wardrobe. No benefit from advertising all the
stuff I don't use anyway. On the odd occasion I do slip into my lycra stuff
I feel like I should be wearing a racing suit when I drive...

me - tongue firmly in cheek - who gives a stuff anyway? Wear what you
want... :-)

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Rainbow Warrior" <pizza@sbs.com.fr> wrote in message
news:9eD7f.956$Hj2.106@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Kim Hawtin" <khawtin@ratbaggames.com> wrote in message
> news:4us233-upb.ln1@0251adl.ratbaggames.com...
> > Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> >> "Ray Peace" <ferret@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:435ea559$1@news.alphalink.com.au...
> >>

< Other stuff chopped out...>

> Just because the wife uses it for 10kms a day shopping and picking kids up
> while hubsband has Corolla at work, doesn't mean it doesn't get used
offroad
> on weekends. We are down to forcing families to buy a 3rd vehicle just to
do
> 50km a week.

10kms a day for kids + shopping? That means everything must be pretty near
by. Why not let the kids ride their bikes to school and fit some panniers to
a shopping bike for the missus? Do the heavy shopping once a week with the
car... That's what we do and it works fine.

Frank

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:43607690$0$13317$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au
....
> Resound wrote:
> > "D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> >
news:43605e57$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au
....
> >

<SNIP Resound's stuff>

>
>
> So smaller brakes and tyres would be better?

That's a plainly dumb comment.

> NRMA did some stopping distance testing and whilst in some circumstances
> the Landcruiser took longer to stop there isn't much in it, at slower
> speeds it matched the Commodore.
> http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml
> You also ignored what I said about reaction times but thats no surprise.
>
>
>
> Daryl

"...in some circumstances the Landcruiser took longer to stop" translates
as: "...in some circumstances the Landcruiser hit things that the Commodore
stopped before hitting."

Frank

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130410643.588662.95300@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

<Resound's comments snipped>

> Once again, showing total prejudice and complete and
> utter ignorance of real facts.
>
> Most 4wds in the market nowadays (and CERTAINLY most of the
> so-called "toorak tractors") have ABS brakes. Which makes them
> a lot better in braking distance than most sedans without them.

Bollox. ABS helps those who know no better than to stand on the brakes as
their version of an emergency stop. Proper braking technique involves
squeezing the brake pedal and controlling your vehicle (yes - I've done
advanced driving courses and rally/race training). If you're relying on ABS
to stop your vehicle from hitting things (me included!) please stay off the
road.

>
> As confirmed by the multitude of bumps I've had to get fixed on
> the rear of my Rav4 and the rear of the wife's Prado simply
> because the idiots driving "safe" sedans behind us cannot break
> in as short a distance.
>
> Yes, I AM fully aware that ABS does not reduce absolute
> braking distance. That's not what it does.
>
> You really don't have a clue of reality, do you?
> I suggest you stay on the physics department "research"
> and leave real life to people who actually have to live it.

Daft sod...

Frank

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

D Walford wrote:
> http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml

"According to ABS research*, the average age of all vehicles registered
in Australia is more than ten years, and 17 per cent of passenger
vehicles on the road were manufactured prior to 1985.

*ABS Motor Vehicle Census, 31 March 2003 (and released 27 November
2003)"

Well theres one for kieron hahahaha.

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130384504.502247.193530@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> 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...

Could well be. At least they are around to disagree. It's harder to express
an opinion from a box 6 feet under...

Frank

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130332929.628822.120080@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Resound wrote some comments which I've snipped>
>
Noons squawked:
> 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!

Again - Bollox. I've been hit by while I was walking on a footpath. The car
hit me without any evidence of braking and teh driver didn't stop. I was
thrown up and over the car and ended up with a couple of bruises. Lucky (or
unlucky to be hit in the first place!)

That means any motor vehcile CAN kill people not "WILL" kill people. There's
a difference. What can be done, and what most of this thread seems to me to
be about is decreasing the likelihood of harm in a collision and avoiding
collisions in the first place.

Another point: I really do think your statement should be further amended to
" any driver can kill people..." It's not necessarlily the Toorak Taxi
that's under attack - it's the mentality of the people who buy and use a
(generic term) Landcruiser in the way described by "Toorak Taxi". People
with that outlook should not have the privilege of using the roads we all
use. Removing the Toorak Taxi won't help all that much beyond decreasing the
impact in a collision (assuming the drivers are forced into smaller
vehicles). We're all still at risk from the same person driving another
vehicle.

Frank

[Ext User(dave)]

Plodder wrote:
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1130410643.588662.95300@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> <Resound's comments snipped>
>
>>Once again, showing total prejudice and complete and
>>utter ignorance of real facts.
>>
>>Most 4wds in the market nowadays (and CERTAINLY most of the
>>so-called "toorak tractors") have ABS brakes. Which makes them
>>a lot better in braking distance than most sedans without them.
>
>
> Bollox. ABS helps those who know no better than to stand on the brakes as
> their version of an emergency stop. Proper braking technique involves
> squeezing the brake pedal and controlling your vehicle (yes - I've done
> advanced driving courses and rally/race training). If you're relying on ABS
> to stop your vehicle from hitting things (me included!) please stay off the
> road.
>
On an advanced course at calder. I was the only one who evaded the
simulated accident. Brake and swerve on damp track.

In a 1967 Austin Healey sprite. One of about 4 cars on the day without
ABS. (which was rather rare then in general)
>
>>As confirmed by the multitude of bumps I've had to get fixed on
>>the rear of my Rav4 and the rear of the wife's Prado simply
>>because the idiots driving "safe" sedans behind us cannot break
>>in as short a distance.
>>
>>Yes, I AM fully aware that ABS does not reduce absolute
>>braking distance. That's not what it does.
>>
>>You really don't have a clue of reality, do you?
>>I suggest you stay on the physics department "research"
>>and leave real life to people who actually have to live it.
>
>
> Daft sod...
>
> Frank
>
>
Would have loved to have seen a big 4wd try that. Funnily no one had
one. Anyone want to have a go? I,ll run the video ( from a long way
away)

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>. That's what we do and it works fine.
here we go again, someone telling other people how to run their
lives..

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>Bollox. ABS helps those who know no better than to stand on the brakes as their version of an emergency stop.
Kid jumps out infront of you within a distance you know yor not going
to stop (not that you would at the time), natural reaction is to stand
on the picks - 99% of the population would do it. Yes ive done
advanced driving courses, drove trailers round the place for 10 yrs...
since you have done that same training, you should also know that its
true.

>If you're relying on ABS to stop your vehicle from hitting things (me included!) please stay off the road.
Where did he say that?

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>Did you read the rest of that?
Was there any point after that uneducated remark?


> Yes, bigger brakes are a good thing but only with regards to cooling.
My god, I actually think you believe this...

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

atec wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> Nah , just telling you Brisbane is one of the worst cities for public
> transport in the western world I have ever seen , but if you are an
> office nonworker then you will be fine .

Yeah, and your taxes pay for me to do this.
Ain't life grand?

T

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Kim Hawtin wrote:
>
> atec wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >> atec wrote:
> >>> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> >>> 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...
>
> a mate of mine lived near Indooroopili and there were two bus runs per
> day. one to the CBD leaving around 830 and one from the CBD ariving
> arroung 4pm!
<snip>
Indooroopilly? Try the train.
Tam

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

dave wrote:
>
> Noons wrote:
> > 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...
>
> silly argument. You hit your head in a 6 foot fall it will do all the
> damage of .. a 6 foot fall. (survivable enough if you avoid hitting your
> head) You hit your head on someones grill at 60 kph clearly it will
> do more.
>
> You may be just as dead.. but in the second case it will be messier.

If you go up in the air and aren't unconsious, you've got a good chance
of preparing yourself so you don't fall too badly. I've fallen from a
trapeze and ended up with a bruised, stiff back for 2 weeks and no
concussion or breaks. If you're unconscious... ew.

Tam

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

atec wrote:
<snip>
> even Wellington to Petone at 5 am... Brisbane to anywhere is damned
> near impossible , but then Ozzies like driving more than many

Agree entirely. There's a big love affair with driving. Driving bores
me!

Tam

[Ext User(Rocatanski)]

F#@* is there anything you have not done, maybe having your underpants on
the outside while getting hit by a car saved you superman.
:-)
"Plodder" <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:436158a3$0$21680$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1130332929.628822.120080@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>> Resound wrote some comments which I've snipped>
>>
> Noons squawked:
>> 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!
>
> Again - Bollox. I've been hit by while I was walking on a footpath. The
> car
> hit me without any evidence of braking and teh driver didn't stop. I was
> thrown up and over the car and ended up with a couple of bruises. Lucky
> (or
> unlucky to be hit in the first place!)
>
> That means any motor vehcile CAN kill people not "WILL" kill people.
> There's
> a difference. What can be done, and what most of this thread seems to me
> to
> be about is decreasing the likelihood of harm in a collision and avoiding
> collisions in the first place.
>
> Another point: I really do think your statement should be further amended
> to
> " any driver can kill people..." It's not necessarlily the Toorak Taxi
> that's under attack - it's the mentality of the people who buy and use a
> (generic term) Landcruiser in the way described by "Toorak Taxi". People
> with that outlook should not have the privilege of using the roads we all
> use. Removing the Toorak Taxi won't help all that much beyond decreasing
> the
> impact in a collision (assuming the drivers are forced into smaller
> vehicles). We're all still at risk from the same person driving another
> vehicle.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>