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

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

TimC wrote:

> I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
> handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
> phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
> conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
> smalltalk.

I agree. I never initiate a call from a moving vehicle, unless I'm the
passenger. But then there are other distracting things people do in cars
that are not illegal. Like changing the CD, eating, drinking, changing the
radio station, etc, etc.

> Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
> without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
> illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

Totally agree. It's probably less dangerous to just answer the phone. I just
let it ring in the past.

Theo

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-25, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
>> handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
>> phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
>> conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
>> smalltalk.
>
> I agree. I never initiate a call from a moving vehicle, unless I'm the
> passenger. But then there are other distracting things people do in cars
> that are not illegal. Like changing the CD, eating, drinking, changing the
> radio station, etc, etc.

I was an inexperienced driver, driving part of the way between Sydney
and somewhere in the middle of NSW, with mum (I was probably a P
plater at the time). I made the mistake of changing the tuner on a
corner, and looked up and was not 30m in front of a jeep travelling in
the opposite direction at 100km/h. Heh. I learnt my lesson very
quickly. Glad it was at a time when I was able to correct for it and
get out of trouble. Never did that again.

>> Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
>> without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
>> illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.
>
> Totally agree. It's probably less dangerous to just answer the phone. I just
> let it ring in the past.

A lot of people seem very adverse to let a ringing phone keep ringing.

You know how people always complain of a phone ringing when they put
out the washing, and they run back inside, and answer the phone, and
the caller had hung up? If the phone is not within hand reach of me,
I don't bother answering it. Probably makes me a bitch to call :)

--
TimC
All Tims are illusions, except for Lunch Tim, who is doubly so.
--screwtape on RHOD

[Ext User(Noons)]

fasgnadh wrote:

> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
> two year old is standing behind it.

A Comodore has a rear blind spot of nearly 20 metres,
regardless of a two year old standing behind it or not.

Ban the Commodore!


> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.

that's an outright lie.

> 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.

An anatomical defficiency is what that sounds like:
brainless is the term that springs to mind.

> "There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
> because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.

So: is it Freudian or anatomical? Make up your mind...

> it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
> sit above everyone else."

does that go for truckies as well?

> The Monash University study found 4WDs were far more likely than
> conventional vehicles to kill or maim other road users.

that is total bullshit.

> But elsewhere 4WDs should be "taxed off the road".

Typical bumhead biggot who thinks he knows better
and that everyone should fit the same mold because
he says so.

and we have to listen to this...

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-13687-17781-200510251210-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On 2005-10-25, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>>
>>>> According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
>>>> 20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.
>>
>>> Was that using an Australian standard height person?
>>
>> I have no idea. It was on whatever followed the ABC News, I was reading
>> the
>> manual for my new phone at the time. How high is an Australian standard
>> person and what is their leg/torso ratio? Presumably using the same
>> person.
>> Either way 17 metres is a long way, probably longer than most peoples'
>> driveways.
>>
>> You'll all be pleased to know that the new phone comes with a hands-free
>> kit. :-)
>
> I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
> handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
> phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
> conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
> smalltalk.
>
> Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
> without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
> illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

Oh no, phone ringing, must answer, hand reaching, can't stop, I know it's
just more work for me but I want it...............................
I just turn mine off for hours sometimes.

[Ext User(tropicus@gmail.com)]

fasgnadh wrote:
> 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.

fast food outlets? Smokers? Stop being a big-government tool, FagBags.

>
> 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

How do you know?


> > 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.

More than a bicycle. Why don't those dangerous bastards ride to work?
Ban Charades immediately!

>
> 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%.

How many have bicyles killed?

>
> I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.

You can't either apparently.

Don't overcompensate for your insecurities, fagBags.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-135-17383-200510251156-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
>> 1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
>> adults in the back.
>
> Minivan.

A SUV if you use US definition and should be banned.

>> 2 10 airbags to protect the side of the head of everyone including the
>> 2 children.
>> 3 The abillity to fjord a flooded weir when the local road overflows
>> (yearly event)
>
> I don't think I would add $10,000 onto the price of a vehicle for a
> once yearly event.

Much better to sit on the bank thinking of the $10k you saved as you watch
the water reaching the door handles.

>> 4 The abillity to take the family skiing around the Mt Hotham area when
>> visiting her husbands family without mucking around with snow chains
>> (both dangerous, costly and damaging to roads)
>> 5 The visibillity. Easy to be seen and easy for kids to get a good
>> view as well as see what the up ahead traffic is doing.
>
> I love point 5. Lets becomes part of the arms race!
>
> Have you ever put thought into the scenario where everyone gets the
> 4WD for your reason given, and then you no longer have a good view of
> the traffic?

I've seen the view and believe it or if traffics not moving it's usually
just a view of more cars not moving.

>> Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel. It even
>> beats most 2L cars for fuel efficiency and goes like a rocket. It's
>> supurb for shopping and also takes much of the discomfort out of speed
>> humps.
>
> Goes like a rocket in the shopping centre car park, I take it?

So do falcodores.

> Speed bumps aren't meant to be uncomfortable. If they are, then you
> are going too fast. If, however, you can't feel them, then they
> aren't serving their purpose to slow you down.

Falcodore drivers just go flat to the floor between them instead.

> You aren't one of those 4WDers who think "ooh, that gutter looks to be
> placed slightly inconvenient, I'll just drive over it"? "Oooh, my
> parking skills aren't very good, and I can't complete this parallel
> parking in 3 steps, so I'll just drive on and off the gutter a couple
> of times until I get it right"?

Funny I've lost count of the number of times I've noticed "safer" "high
performance" "superior handling" vehicles not staying in their own lane,
when your pushing hard through a windy mountain road crossing double yellow
lines on every corner and there's a slinky suspension 76 Range Rover on your
tail that is staying on the right side of the road, doesn't it highlight
something?
Many of them can't keep between 2 lines in a parking space, yet I manage to
fit my oversized Patrol in the same spots just fine.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130203622.546998.166380@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Kev wrote:
>> > Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
>> > other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
>> > and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
>> > fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).
>>
>> what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
>> with cars?
>
> It's probably BS. In anycase most of the 4WDs I see are full of women
> and children.
>
>> in thye 20 years of driving trucks past bicycles on both city streets
>> and highways I have never hit one(although the dickhead who granbbed the
>> back of one truck for a free tow up hill was almost flung into a light
>> pole when I had to take evasive action to avoid a car that pulled out of
>> a driveway in front of me)
>
> The one altercation we had with a cyclist was when we stopped at lights
> and he rear ended us. He actually got 'bicycle rage' and blamed us and
> started thumping the car. Bicylcists can become as morally arrogant as
> anyone. I say that as a frequent cyclist.
>
> Cycles in Sydney are BS as they are in any CBD (including Amsterdam).
> You see them all over the place in small European cities and villages.
> Not major metropols.

Yep they sing a different tune when they are knocking over pedestrians on
the footpath

[Ext User(Tom N)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:

> "Tom N" wrote
>> I think the 5% duty on 4wds should be increased to 10% like other
>> cars and that 5% duty should apply to cars with 5 star ANCAP or
>> EuroNCAP crash rating that also have side, curtain and front airbags,
>> plus maybe some criteria based on pedestrian crash friendliness.
>
> I'm yet to get this mythical tax break on any second hand 4wd I've
> owned, stamp duty is same as cars up here.

It's import duty. It applies to the price of new cars, and the price of
second hand 4WDs will be reduced as they are in competition with new 4WDs.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn17.htm

[Ext User(Eunometic)]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
> > 1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
> > adults in the back.
>
> Minivan.


They all handle like a milk van, are sluggish and stressfull on long
trips (drive up some hills in one). The best I've seen is the
Chrysler Voyager and its not being promoted in Australia.

>
> > 2 10 airbags to protect the side of the head of everyone including the
> > 2 children.
> > 3 The abillity to fjord a flooded weir when the local road overflows
> > (yearly event)
>
> I don't think I would add $10,000 onto the price of a vehicle for a
> once yearly event.

Depends on your income. $10K is not a lot of money for some people if
its the difference between $45K and $55K.

>
> > 4 The abillity to take the family skiing around the Mt Hotham area when
> > visiting her husbands family without mucking around with snow chains
> > (both dangerous, costly and damaging to roads)
> > 5 The visibillity. Easy to be seen and easy for kids to get a good
> > view as well as see what the up ahead traffic is doing.
>
> I love point 5. Lets becomes part of the arms race!

I notice you ignore point 4. Properly driven a 4wd will avoid being
caught behined traffic turning right and help the traffic behined as
well.

If you want to improve traffic flow train idiots that don't indicate
when turning right and train those idiots who get caught behined people
turning right because they don't pay attention.


>
> Have you ever put thought into the scenario where everyone gets the
> 4WD for your reason given, and then you no longer have a good view of
> the traffic?

It won't happen. I myself aren't interested in a 4WD though I am
interested in an AWD (eg Audi Quattro or Subaru Forester/Outback) for
its safety and snow.wet capabillity. It is an entirely appropriate
choice for my sister and although they are jokingly "Nth Shore Shopping
Trolleys" they provide recreation (towing, skining, space) to lots of
families and reverse the tables on dickheads in utes.


>
> > Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel. It even
> > beats most 2L cars for fuel efficiency and goes like a rocket. It's
> > supurb for shopping and also takes much of the discomfort out of speed
> > humps.
>
> Goes like a rocket in the shopping centre car park, I take it?

No. It's power is of great value on long trips when it is loaded up.
Ever heard of hills and overtaking? Ever taken a long Journey
interestate or country?

>
> Speed bumps aren't meant to be uncomfortable. If they are, then you
> are going too fast. If, however, you can't feel them, then they
> aren't serving their purpose to slow you down.

Speed humps are BS. They create an enormous amount of noise for
residents as cars brake and then accelerate. They slow down emergency
services, torture elderly or ill ambulence patients, ear out and damage
car suspensions, gearboxes and brakes it's worse than nothing at all.
Properly desinged estates funnel the traffic appropriately and use cul
de sacs or us chicanes.

People on 4WD don't seem to take speed humps any faster than people in
ordinary cars; in fact they are suprisingly slow. It's the dickheads
in little fast fours and lowered Skyline GTRs, Imprezza WRX's and
Commedors that are the problem.

Nevertheless ground clearence is a big issue becuase of the speed hump
insanity pervading our neighbourhoods and 4wds have good clearence.


>
> You aren't one of those 4WDers who think "ooh, that gutter looks to be
> placed slightly inconvenient, I'll just drive over it"? "Oooh, my
> parking skills aren't very good, and I can't complete this parallel
> parking in 3 steps, so I'll just drive on and off the gutter a couple
> of times until I get it right"?

Mostly nonsense and hype.

[Ext User(Eunometic)]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Eunometic wrote:
>
> > Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel.
>
> Easy to beat that. My son got his ML320 CDI last week. First one registered
> in WA. Those parking sensors, front and rear, are really cool. He was able
> to detect me standing behind him and back up to within a foot of me on his
> first use of it.
>
> Theo

My sis actually brought an low kilometer ML 270 CDI second hand for
about $50K. It's hard to believe that a 2.7L turbo could be both so
powerfull and economical. It's actually a shorter car than the ancient
13 year old shitbox Magna she had before and uses less fuel (suprising
for a vehicle twice the weight. The parking sensors are absent on
this ML 270 but they would be very usefull. The shortness of the M
series combined with sensors would make it a usefull city car. I
suspect cars like this are going to end up with mandatory rearview
video. Displays and cameras are cheap these days and the display can
be used for other information once the car is in forward motion. It's
certainly an option every 'mom' will pay for.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435d5f87$2@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435d02dc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Oh look, we've roused them :D
>
> Yes, that story certainly did.
>
> All it takes is for the press to mentiom "4wd" and the left wing loonies
> come straight out of the woodwork :)
>
>> We're talking about toddler height objects. Try driving away from a white
>> post in your lard arse Landcruiser until you can see the whole reflector
>> at
>> the top. Then stop and see how far from it you are.Everything between it
>> and
>> the back of your vehicle is where you can't see a child.
>
> I don't have a Landcruiser.
>
> I have a Cherokee, and it's rearward visibility is better than any sedan
> I've owned in the last 20 years. Some 4wd's are terrible in this regard,
> as are some sedans (current model Commodore anyone?)
>
> That said, it's all a bit moot when it's the *driver* who is 100%
> responsible in these circumstances, and the vehicle type is completely
> irrelevant.
>
>> And I think the word you're desperately groping for is "reactionary".
>
> That'd be the one. Thanks muchly......
>
>> Why yes, I actually DO react to things. You know...by thinking about them
>> for example
>
> Oh, really?
>
> So a broad general bullshit comment like the 15 metre rear view
> restriction in a "4wd" is an example of your thought process?
>
> Jesus... :)
>
>> Who wants to take bets on an incoherent response or none at all?
>
> Judging by your initial post, I'm not overly confident :)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>

Well I didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but basic geometry says that
the higher the whole driver/mirror/back window arrangement is, the wider the
area is in which you can't see anything. The bottom sills of the windows on
vehicles commonly referred to as "4WD" vehicles (and what IS your preferred
term then?) tend to be substantially higher than those on conventional cars.
Thinking about the general shape of the Cherokee, I can see that it would
have better visibility than most other 4WDs as it has a large and low glass
area. I'd still say try the white post trick and see how far you get,
especially in your normal backing out of the driveway mode, not hoiked up
out of your seat with your head against the roof lining. In any case,
"Landcruiser" was a generic term in this particular usage. I could have
referred to any other similar vehicle. While I can't recall the specific
numbers, the original article did cite some that demonstrated that this type
of vehicle is vastly over-represented in this sort of incident.

My personal take on off road vehicles is that is when they're used as such
on a regular basis, I don't actually have that much of a problem with them.
A couple of months ago I spotted a less than brand new (early 90s) TDi
Rangie with tyres that actually looked like they were chosen with function
rather than form in mind. No bullbar, but a fairly stonkin' PTO winch. The
whole thing reeked of utility and it did not for one second irritate me as
it was clearly used on a regular basis for the purpose for which it was
designed. It's when they're used entirely, or very nearly so in an urban
evironment that they really start to piss me off. The justification for
their usage seems to be more or less completely based on the notion that
they're safer. That safety isn't from better passive safety features such as
air bags or anti-intrusion measures and it's certainly not from better
handling or brakes, it's based on the idea that you can make the other
person suck up the bulk of the energy from the collision. Never mind that
that amount of energy would have been substantially less had they been
driving a lighter vehicle, especially given that they would have braked to a
significantly slower speed before the collision. That along with the stupid
amounts of fuel they use(which is becoming increasingly scarce and which in
turn produces the filth in the air that is the one real thing I dislike
about riding or walking in the city) and the fact that they screw visibility
on the road for everyone else all speaks of a "the hell with everyone else,
I'm fine" attitude.

Now I'll cheerfully admit that this is, in several points, a broad
generalisation. It's a broad generalisation with pretty wide applicability
though. Sure, there are plenty of people who buy this sort of vehicle, use
it appropriately and are well aware of the capabilities and limitations of
those vehicles and so drive them accordingly. They're in the minority
however. A lot of people who own one seem to think that they're driving an
unusually butch Hyundai Lantra. This is particularly in metro areas, so if
you're in a rural area, this probably doesn't apply where you are. As
someone who is a notably vunerable road user who negotiates traffic through
the metro areas for about 250-300km/week, I see a lot of different types of
drivers and vehicles and I pay close attention to them because, as one
member of this group (aus.bicycle) recently found out, they can do stupid
unpredictable things and it's not insurance details you worry about after
polishing the road with your face. The result of this close attention is
that you become aware of what sort of drivers and vehicles represent a high
level of likely threat and which do not. Now in general, most cars are fine.
You learn though to beware of Falcon and Commodores from the "performance"
end of the range, courier vans, gold coloured Mercedes (dunno why, but
they'll go where they please and screw everyone else and the rules of the
road) and shiny (the shiner, the more dangerous) 4WDs with either the tubby
bloke in the shirt and tie or crisply ironed polo shirt OR the prissily over
made-up, overdressed skinny woman in her late 40s or older who just might
outmass the tubby bloke by virtues of the "product" in her hair. Extra bonus
points for likely random idiocy if they have spawn smearing snot over the
inside of the back windows. You pick them a couple of hundred metres off and
watch them like a hawk.

Note that I'm among the first to admit that there are idiot cyclists on the
road. There are also an ever increasing number of cyclists who are
extremely inexperienced at riding on the road even if they've been driving
for years. That guy with his knees flapping in the breeze who wobbled
through a red light on the wrong side of the road at 8pm with no lights or
helmet? Yeah, I'm swearing at him just as much as you. He makes me look bad
and he's a menace to everyone around him. The courier doing 35kph on the
footpath through pedestrians? Yep, I'm swearing at him as well for the same
reason. The bulk of experienced cyclists obey the rules of the road and ride
in as predictable fashion as possible. We know that doing so, along with
being co-operative with motorists (whether they realise it or not) is what
keeps us safe. Sometimes that means that we do things that aren't
immediately obvious or intuitive. Read this: http://bicyclesafe.com/ to see
why we don't hide in the gutter etc.

Yeah, actually, I do think about these things, thanks very much.

[Ext User(Resound)]

>
>> In terms of crash protection for 4wd occupants, the safety ratings show
>> they are no better nor worse than other similarly sized cars.
>> http://www.mynrma.com.au/ancap_1.asp
>
>
It's not the safety of the occupants on the 4WD that's at issue, it's that
of the occupants of the vehicles they hit.

[Ext User(Resound)]

<tropicus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130208919.582877.165910@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> 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.
>
> fast food outlets? Smokers? Stop being a big-government tool, FagBags.

Oh, of course, as cyclists, we're the darlings of the media and pull in vast
amounts of government funding. We're just toeing the line of "the man".
Pfeh.

>> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
>> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
>
> How many have bicyles killed?
>

Apparently, two people in the last 10 years (approx.) or to put it another
way, what cars manage in three days.

[Ext User(Eunometic)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-135-17383-200510251156-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> > On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
> > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >> Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
> >> 1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
> >> adults in the back.
> >
> > Minivan.
>
> A SUV if you use US definition and should be banned.


>
> Funny I've lost count of the number of times I've noticed "safer" "high
> performance" "superior handling" vehicles not staying in their own lane,
> when your pushing hard through a windy mountain road crossing double yellow
> lines on every corner and there's a slinky suspension 76 Range Rover on your
> tail that is staying on the right side of the road, doesn't it highlight
> something?
> Many of them can't keep between 2 lines in a parking space, yet I manage to
> fit my oversized Patrol in the same spots just fine.

This is just prejudice and nonsense. I've seen idiots in 'pocket
rocket' hatch backs (particularly chicks), utes, motorcyles, bicyles,
4WD and AWD, lowered jap fast cars, volvos etc behace anti-socially.
Everyone has a pet hate.

Your pet hate is 4WD and SUVs because you style yourself as morally
superior "green" by denigrating all people who choose such vehicles.
Greenies are tragically often simply shallow 'status seekers' as much
as anyone. The idea of being morally righteous and arrogant 'holier
than thou' is the real driver. I'll admit that there are a few
'arrogant pigs' who choose a 'truck' to bully people around but they
are quite rare.

As far as I can see the 4WD and AWD is here to stay. Infact it is very
likely that future electric and hybrid vehicles will be all wheel drive
types since this allows great increases in regenerative braking power.
So far the weakness of batteries in accepting regenerative braking has
limited this but the development of new batteries based on
nanoparticles (by toshiba), maxwell hypercapacitors is about to change
matters.

BMW has tested a 'electrically supercharged' AWD SUV that uses
hypercapacitors and an electric motors to achieve AWD, 15% better fuel
efficiency and an enormous increase in low speed acceleration.

Individual control of both the acceleration, braking and regeneration
of each wheel in concert with electronic stabillity programms is going
to be very helpfull as far as safety and handling is concerned.

If I thought there was no alternative to both greenhouse and traffic
I'd demand that we switch to electric gold buggy vehicles to get around
the suburbs and 40km/h.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130217238.441404.250350@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-135-17383-200510251156-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
>> > On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
>> > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> >> Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the
>> >> following:
>> >> 1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
>> >> adults in the back.
>> >
>> > Minivan.
>>
>> A SUV if you use US definition and should be banned.
>
>
>>
>> Funny I've lost count of the number of times I've noticed "safer" "high
>> performance" "superior handling" vehicles not staying in their own lane,
>> when your pushing hard through a windy mountain road crossing double
>> yellow
>> lines on every corner and there's a slinky suspension 76 Range Rover on
>> your
>> tail that is staying on the right side of the road, doesn't it highlight
>> something?
>> Many of them can't keep between 2 lines in a parking space, yet I manage
>> to
>> fit my oversized Patrol in the same spots just fine.
>
> This is just prejudice and nonsense. I've seen idiots in 'pocket
> rocket' hatch backs (particularly chicks), utes, motorcyles, bicyles,
> 4WD and AWD, lowered jap fast cars, volvos etc behace anti-socially.
> Everyone has a pet hate.
>
> Your pet hate is 4WD and SUVs because you style yourself as morally
> superior "green" by denigrating all people who choose such vehicles.
> Greenies are tragically often simply shallow 'status seekers' as much
> as anyone. The idea of being morally righteous and arrogant 'holier
> than thou' is the real driver. I'll admit that there are a few
> 'arrogant pigs' who choose a 'truck' to bully people around but they
> are quite rare.
>
> As far as I can see the 4WD and AWD is here to stay. Infact it is very
> likely that future electric and hybrid vehicles will be all wheel drive
> types since this allows great increases in regenerative braking power.
> So far the weakness of batteries in accepting regenerative braking has
> limited this but the development of new batteries based on
> nanoparticles (by toshiba), maxwell hypercapacitors is about to change
> matters.
>
> BMW has tested a 'electrically supercharged' AWD SUV that uses
> hypercapacitors and an electric motors to achieve AWD, 15% better fuel
> efficiency and an enormous increase in low speed acceleration.
>
> Individual control of both the acceleration, braking and regeneration
> of each wheel in concert with electronic stabillity programms is going
> to be very helpfull as far as safety and handling is concerned.
>
> If I thought there was no alternative to both greenhouse and traffic
> I'd demand that we switch to electric gold buggy vehicles to get around
> the suburbs and 40km/h.
>

AWD, particularly on electric vehicles makes enormous sense. There's a
difference between AWD and offroad though. Something like a Subaru GX sedan
(baby non-turbo brother to the WRX) makes a lot of sense. A 2½ ton truck
doesn't. I'm perplexed by proud happy claims that someone has managed to
make a hybrid SUV which has fuel efficiency figures almost as good as a
conventional sedan. Put the same tech into a conventional car, get the same
savings over a far smaller base figure and I'll be much more impressed. It's
the issues surrounding battery life and disposal that make me question
hybrids at the moment. Once they sort those questions, I'll be very
interested.

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Eunometic wrote:

> I'd demand that we switch to electric gold buggy

I'd like one of those 'gold' buggys. :-)

Theo

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130217238.441404.250350@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-135-17383-200510251156-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
>> > On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
>> > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> >> Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the
>> >> following:
>> >> 1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
>> >> adults in the back.
>> >
>> > Minivan.
>>
>> A SUV if you use US definition and should be banned.
>
>> Funny I've lost count of the number of times I've noticed "safer" "high
>> performance" "superior handling" vehicles not staying in their own lane,
>> when your pushing hard through a windy mountain road crossing double
>> yellow
>> lines on every corner and there's a slinky suspension 76 Range Rover on
>> your
>> tail that is staying on the right side of the road, doesn't it highlight
>> something?
>> Many of them can't keep between 2 lines in a parking space, yet I manage
>> to
>> fit my oversized Patrol in the same spots just fine.
>
> This is just prejudice and nonsense. I've seen idiots in 'pocket
> rocket' hatch backs (particularly chicks), utes, motorcyles, bicyles,
> 4WD and AWD, lowered jap fast cars, volvos etc behace anti-socially.
> Everyone has a pet hate.
>
> Your pet hate is 4WD and SUVs because you style yourself as morally
> superior "green" by denigrating all people who choose such vehicles.
> Greenies are tragically often simply shallow 'status seekers' as much
> as anyone. The idea of being morally righteous and arrogant 'holier
> than thou' is the real driver. I'll admit that there are a few
> 'arrogant pigs' who choose a 'truck' to bully people around but they
> are quite rare.

I like 4wd's actually and own one



>
> As far as I can see the 4WD and AWD is here to stay. Infact it is very
> likely that future electric and hybrid vehicles will be all wheel drive
> types since this allows great increases in regenerative braking power.
> So far the weakness of batteries in accepting regenerative braking has
> limited this but the development of new batteries based on
> nanoparticles (by toshiba), maxwell hypercapacitors is about to change
> matters.
>
> BMW has tested a 'electrically supercharged' AWD SUV that uses
> hypercapacitors and an electric motors to achieve AWD, 15% better fuel
> efficiency and an enormous increase in low speed acceleration.
>
> Individual control of both the acceleration, braking and regeneration
> of each wheel in concert with electronic stabillity programms is going
> to be very helpfull as far as safety and handling is concerned.
>
> If I thought there was no alternative to both greenhouse and traffic
> I'd demand that we switch to electric gold buggy vehicles to get around
> the suburbs and 40km/h.
>

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Tom N" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96FA946863421ndt601946x@61.9.191.5...
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
>> "Tom N" wrote
>>> I think the 5% duty on 4wds should be increased to 10% like other
>>> cars and that 5% duty should apply to cars with 5 star ANCAP or
>>> EuroNCAP crash rating that also have side, curtain and front airbags,
>>> plus maybe some criteria based on pedestrian crash friendliness.
>>
>> I'm yet to get this mythical tax break on any second hand 4wd I've
>> owned, stamp duty is same as cars up here.
>
> It's import duty. It applies to the price of new cars, and the price of
> second hand 4WDs will be reduced as they are in competition with new 4WDs.

It hardly effects my desision though to buy one and seeing more second hand
ones change hand than new the point is moot really.




>
> http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn17.htm

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435dba92$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Well I didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but basic geometry says
> that the higher the whole driver/mirror/back window arrangement is, the
> wider the area is in which you can't see anything. The bottom sills of the
> windows on vehicles commonly referred to as "4WD" vehicles (and what IS
> your preferred term then?) tend to be substantially higher than those on
> conventional cars. Thinking about the general shape of the Cherokee, I can
> see that it would have better visibility than most other 4WDs as it has a
> large and low glass area. I'd still say try the white post trick and see
> how far you get, especially in your normal backing out of the driveway
> mode, not hoiked up out of your seat with your head against the roof
> lining. In any case, "Landcruiser" was a generic term in this particular
> usage. I could have referred to any other similar vehicle. While I can't
> recall the specific numbers, the original article did cite some that
> demonstrated that this type of vehicle is vastly over-represented in this
> sort of incident.

Utes have better visibility than wagons or sedans, unless loaded.

> My personal take on off road vehicles is that is when they're used as such
> on a regular basis, I don't actually have that much of a problem with
> them. A couple of months ago I spotted a less than brand new (early 90s)
> TDi Rangie with tyres that actually looked like they were chosen with
> function rather than form in mind. No bullbar, but a fairly stonkin' PTO
> winch. The whole thing reeked of utility and it did not for one second
> irritate me as it was clearly used on a regular basis for the purpose for
> which it was designed. It's when they're used entirely, or very nearly so
> in an urban evironment that they really start to piss me off. The
> justification for their usage seems to be more or less completely based on
> the notion that they're safer. That safety isn't from better passive
> safety features such as air bags or anti-intrusion measures and it's
> certainly not from better handling or brakes, it's based on the idea that
> you can make the other person suck up the bulk of the energy from the
> collision. Never mind that that amount of energy would have been
> substantially less had they been driving a lighter vehicle, especially
> given that they would have braked to a significantly slower speed before
> the collision. That along with the stupid amounts of fuel they use(which
> is becoming increasingly scarce and which in turn produces the filth in
> the air that is the one real thing I dislike about riding or walking in
> the city) and the fact that they screw visibility on the road for everyone
> else all speaks of a "the hell with everyone else, I'm fine" attitude.

Trouble is I take off my $300 each mud tyres and fitt roadies, and I'm
labelled a Toorok tractor or show pony by anti 4wd experts who don't even
know the difference betweenn a A/T & M/T.


> Now I'll cheerfully admit that this is, in several points, a broad
> generalisation. It's a broad generalisation with pretty wide applicability
> though. Sure, there are plenty of people who buy this sort of vehicle, use
> it appropriately and are well aware of the capabilities and limitations of
> those vehicles and so drive them accordingly. They're in the minority
> however. A lot of people who own one seem to think that they're driving an
> unusually butch Hyundai Lantra. This is particularly in metro areas, so if
> you're in a rural area, this probably doesn't apply where you are. As
> someone who is a notably vunerable road user who negotiates traffic
> through the metro areas for about 250-300km/week, I see a lot of different
> types of drivers and vehicles and I pay close attention to them because,
> as one member of this group (aus.bicycle) recently found out, they can do
> stupid unpredictable things and it's not insurance details you worry about
> after polishing the road with your face. The result of this close
> attention is that you become aware of what sort of drivers and vehicles
> represent a high level of likely threat and which do not. Now in general,
> most cars are fine. You learn though to beware of Falcon and Commodores
> from the "performance" end of the range, courier vans, gold coloured
> Mercedes (dunno why, but they'll go where they please and screw everyone
> else and the rules of the road) and shiny (the shiner, the more dangerous)
> 4WDs with either the tubby bloke in the shirt and tie or crisply ironed
> polo shirt OR the prissily over made-up, overdressed skinny woman in her
> late 40s or older who just might outmass the tubby bloke by virtues of the
> "product" in her hair. Extra bonus points for likely random idiocy if they
> have spawn smearing snot over the inside of the back windows. You pick
> them a couple of hundred metres off and watch them like a hawk.

Yep just because some aus.cars expert proclaims they handle bad compared to
the sports cars they have driven for the last 10 years doesn't mean others
don't have better skills than them in such heavier vehicles.

> Note that I'm among the first to admit that there are idiot cyclists on
> the road. There are also an ever increasing number of cyclists who are
> extremely inexperienced at riding on the road even if they've been driving
> for years. That guy with his knees flapping in the breeze who wobbled
> through a red light on the wrong side of the road at 8pm with no lights or
> helmet? Yeah, I'm swearing at him just as much as you. He makes me look
> bad and he's a menace to everyone around him. The courier doing 35kph on
> the footpath through pedestrians? Yep, I'm swearing at him as well for the
> same reason. The bulk of experienced cyclists obey the rules of the road
> and ride in as predictable fashion as possible. We know that doing so,
> along with being co-operative with motorists (whether they realise it or
> not) is what keeps us safe. Sometimes that means that we do things that
> aren't immediately obvious or intuitive. Read this:
> http://bicyclesafe.com/ to see why we don't hide in the gutter etc.
>
> Yeah, actually, I do think about these things, thanks very much.
>

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Resound wrote:
> "Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435cd21b$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
>>"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>
>>>For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>>
>>****ing bullshit :)
>>
>>What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Noddy.
>>
>
> Oh look, we've roused them :D
>
> We're talking about toddler height objects. Try driving away from a white
> post in your lard arse Landcruiser until you can see the whole reflector at
> the top. Then stop and see how far from it you are.Everything between it and
> the back of your vehicle is where you can't see a child. And I think the
> word you're desperately groping for is "reactionary". Why yes, I actually DO
> react to things. You know...by thinking about them for example.
>
> Who wants to take bets on an incoherent response or none at all?
>
>
No doubt there are problems with rear visibilty from vehicles but it is
not 4WD specific.
Rear visibility is worse from my wifes Corolla hatch than from my Hilux
ute, the LH rear of the Corolla has a bad blind spot and so do many
other small hatchbacks.
Maybe a time will come when reversing cameras are mandatory on all
vehicles but they won't be much good if dickhead drivers don't use them.



Daryl