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

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435dd909$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> So, assuming that you've got a level driveway, how much of it CAN you see
> from the driver's seat. I don't mean down one side from the wing mirrors
> either, I mean directly behind the vehicle?

With my car parked right at the Garage door, I can see the ground at the
corner of the house clearly, which would be 5 metres maximum. With the
convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the rear bumper.
Interestingly, I also have an ED Fairmont Ghia, and in that car the minimum
rear viewing distance would be an additional 3 metres easily.

I've got two kids, and never gone remotely close to running one over, no
matter what I happened to be driving.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Bob)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435e05e0$4@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> With the convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the
> rear bumper.

Maybe positive approaches to solving these problems should be looked at
first. Like your convex view panel. I notice a lot of courier vans have an
external mirror at the back facing their rear bumper. Would it be too hard
to require these to be retrofitted to make life safer?

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Noddy wrote:
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435dd909$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
>>So, assuming that you've got a level driveway, how much of it CAN you see
>>from the driver's seat. I don't mean down one side from the wing mirrors
>>either, I mean directly behind the vehicle?
>
>
> With my car parked right at the Garage door, I can see the ground at the
> corner of the house clearly, which would be 5 metres maximum. With the
> convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the rear bumper.
> Interestingly, I also have an ED Fairmont Ghia, and in that car the minimum
> rear viewing distance would be an additional 3 metres easily.

I did a rough check of the Hilux this afternoon, approx 8 mtrs using the
internal rear view mirror.
Much less if using the external mirrors and or turning my head around.



Daryl

[Ext User(Resound)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-31759-12130-200510251927-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On 2005-10-25, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Brash wrote:
>>> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-9166-23232-200510242059-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
>>>>This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.
>>>
>>> And nothing about you? Of course not.
>>>
>> What that Tims met more Dickheads than many? Or that its a waste of
>> time his buying a tatts ticket? Doesnt say anything about him other
>> than that
>
> The anecdotal "stat" I have heard is that someone cycling 10,000km on
> the road per year can expect to be hit about once a year (fortunately,
> few of those hits result in hospitalisation, and most of them probably
> go unreported to police and hence can't be counted in a rigorous
> survey of accidents).
>
> I know there are people that do better than this. I don't recall the
> last time EuanB was hit. EuanB is also a very good and I imagine,
> conservative cyclist (and SusieB should punch him if he weren't :).
> Does he perhaps also not spend his entire 35km-each-way commute on
> busy roads? I'm not sure.
>
> Being hit 3 times a year (the 4th wasn't really a hit - it was more a
> grab of his car in order not to lose balance and fall, followed by him
> getting out of the car and assaulting me), is only 2 standard
> deviations off the mean. Small number statistics and all that, mean
> that it is not unexpected at all -- a 5% chance of happening by
> chance -- ie, one in 20 cyclists riding 10,000km per year can expect
> to be hit 3 times in one year (and one in a hundred 4 times a year).
>
> Sigh, I sound like an astronomer with no data.
>

Well I did get hit a while ago in an incident similar to your's Tim,
although I stayed upright. I saw the indicator on the front guard flash just
before my leg bounced off it. I suppose they figured that a bike lane wasn't
a REAL lane, so they didn't have to look before they wandered across it
without indicating. It would have been nasty had I come off though. I was
doing a solid 30kph at the time. It would have been faster but I was coming
up on a more congested bit of the road so I was slowing down. At least it
wasn't downhill. The same exercise at 50kph might not have ended so happily.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435dd8a6@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> I still say try it, you might be unpleasantly surprised. It doesn't take
> much for a child to scoot behind a vehicle on one side while you're
> watching clearance on the other.

It's all about situational awareness.

Paying extra attention in areas where children or animals are likely to be
isn't hard. I know children can be quick, but 30 seconds spent ensuring
they're not in danger is a very small effort compared to a lifetime of
regret.

I have two kids, a dog and a cat, and I never back out of the driveway
unless I know where they're all at.

> Those fresnel lense arrangements don't offer particularly fabulous
> visibility either...I've driven a couple of vans fitted with them.

Maybe mine's different.

The actual view isn't spectacularly clear, but with it on the lower centre
of the rear window I can see virtually straight down for the full width of
the vehicle.

I use it primarily for backing onto my trailer, but it's also a great safety
device.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435e05e0$4@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435dd909$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> So, assuming that you've got a level driveway, how much of it CAN you see
>> from the driver's seat. I don't mean down one side from the wing mirrors
>> either, I mean directly behind the vehicle?
>
> With my car parked right at the Garage door, I can see the ground at the
> corner of the house clearly, which would be 5 metres maximum. With the
> convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the rear bumper.
> Interestingly, I also have an ED Fairmont Ghia, and in that car the
> minimum rear viewing distance would be an additional 3 metres easily.
>
> I've got two kids, and never gone remotely close to running one over, no
> matter what I happened to be driving.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
>
With your car parked right at the garage door the corner of the house is
directly behind you?

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Bob" <bob.mccorkle@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:435e0857$0$25658$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> Maybe positive approaches to solving these problems should be looked at
> first. Like your convex view panel. I notice a lot of courier vans have an
> external mirror at the back facing their rear bumper. Would it be too hard
> to require these to be retrofitted to make life safer?

They're certainly a good idea, and I had one on my work van when doing on
site stuff.

Nothing worse than going out to do an on site repair and sticking your
towbar tongue right through the customer's grille :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(dave)]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-25, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Brash wrote:
>>
>>>"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>news:slrn-0.9.7.4-9166-23232-200510242059-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
>>>
>>>>This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.
>>>
>>>And nothing about you? Of course not.
>>>
>>
>>What that Tims met more Dickheads than many? Or that its a waste of
>>time his buying a tatts ticket? Doesnt say anything about him other
>>than that
>
>
> The anecdotal "stat" I have heard is that someone cycling 10,000km on
> the road per year can expect to be hit about once a year (fortunately,
> few of those hits result in hospitalisation, and most of them probably
> go unreported to police and hence can't be counted in a rigorous
> survey of accidents).
>
> I know there are people that do better than this. I don't recall the
> last time EuanB was hit. EuanB is also a very good and I imagine,
> conservative cyclist (and SusieB should punch him if he weren't :).
> Does he perhaps also not spend his entire 35km-each-way commute on
> busy roads? I'm not sure.
>
> Being hit 3 times a year (the 4th wasn't really a hit - it was more a
> grab of his car in order not to lose balance and fall, followed by him
> getting out of the car and assaulting me), is only 2 standard
> deviations off the mean. Small number statistics and all that, mean
> that it is not unexpected at all -- a 5% chance of happening by
> chance -- ie, one in 20 cyclists riding 10,000km per year can expect
> to be hit 3 times in one year (and one in a hundred 4 times a year).
>
> Sigh, I sound like an astronomer with no data.
>
Well I have been hit once in the last 50 000 km. THanks for taking the
hits for me Tim

Dave

[Ext User(dave)]

Bob wrote:
> "Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435e05e0$4@news.comindico.com.au...
>
>> With the convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the
>>rear bumper.
>
>
> Maybe positive approaches to solving these problems should be looked at
> first. Like your convex view panel. I notice a lot of courier vans have an
> external mirror at the back facing their rear bumper. Would it be too hard
> to require these to be retrofitted to make life safer?
>
>
Really. In the healy I can see the back corners of the car :)

[Ext User(wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.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.

[Ext User(wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.com)]

Brash wrote:
> "Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:ga37f.26369$U51.22679@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "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
>
> That's what I said. Dickhead.
>
> >>>>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 blame 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.
> >
> > Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.
>
> I think Stalinists like Scruby and Faghands should be banned.
>
Nahh.. don't ban the bludgers, let tehm be useful and productive
members of society, and use their bodies as crash test dummies for four
wheel drive bullbars.

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435D483E.3090207@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>
>>>"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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.
>>

You are lying. You have no credibility.


>>If 90% of pedestrians were run over there would be a ban.
>>
>>But cars would have to routinely mount the footpaths
>>to get 90% of pedestrians.
>>
>>You didn't 'hear' such figures, you made them up.
>>
>>Which is incredible rat bastard behaviour when kiddes are
>>being killed.
>>

And you are clearly just such a rat bastard.

>>As I said, even though you took your socks off, you still
>>can't do the math.
>
>
> You say 50%

No, The Monash University Accident Research Committee has
researched the hard facts which show that 50% of the driveway
'accidents' that kill children involved 4WDs.

You, on the other hand just make shit up, and it's dribbling
from your chin;

> another wowser says 80%,

Actually you said "cars run over 90% of pedestrians", which was
complete nonsense, totally fabricated bullshit.


> you are both plucking figures from
> someones arse anyway.

Nah, the researchers count the actual accident figures;
you make up utter bullshit and are a liar without credibility




"Of the 36 deaths that they recorded between, I think
it was 1996 and 1998, all of which occurred on driveways
involving young children and low-speed collisions,
that four-wheel drives were involved in 50 per cent
of those crashes, compared to passenger cars that
were only involved in 20 per cent."
- PROFESSOR BRIAN FILDES, MONASH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTRE

"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
less visibility."
- PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
vehicles and gave them a star rating. The results
varied dramatically and not always as you might expect.
A 2-year-old child of average height is invisible
behind the Diahatsu Charade hatch up to a distance
of just over 2m. For a Land Rover Discovery,
that black spot stretches out to a mammoth 20m."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1489663.htm

"The relationship always is visibility
of the car. So in general, the
big four-wheel drives have got less visibility. "

The facts are not difficult to understand, so why do you
****ing liars try to make up ridiculous lies when it's
so easy to show you are full of shit?


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>"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(fasgnadh)]

Brash wrote:
> "Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:ga37f.26369$U51.22679@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
>>
...
>>>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.


"Of the 36 deaths that they recorded between, I think
it was 1996 and 1998, all of which occurred on driveways
involving young children and low-speed collisions,
that four-wheel drives were involved in 50 per cent
of those crashes, compared to passenger cars that
were only involved in 20 per cent."
- PROFESSOR BRIAN FILDES, MONASH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTRE

"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
less visibility."
- PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
vehicles and gave them a star rating. The results
varied dramatically and not always as you might expect.
A 2-year-old child of average height is invisible
behind the Diahatsu Charade hatch up to a distance
of just over 2m. For a Land Rover Discovery,
that black spot stretches out to a mammoth 20m."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1489663.htm

"The relationship always is visibility
of the car. So in general, the
big four-wheel drives have got less visibility. "

The facts are not difficult to understand, so why do you
****ing liars try to make up ridiculous crap when it's
so easy to show you are full of shit?

>>
>>Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.
>

Complete ****ing lies.. pulled from his arse,
which must be difficult, with Bash's head stuck up there,
kissing for all he's worth;
>
> I think

No evidence of that has ever been shown


> Stalinists like Scruby and Faghands

Who cares which fag hands you like, you tosser?

> should be banned.

Jesus you dumb-as-pigshit jackboot johnies sure do hate to
be confronted with the facts!

How do you ****wits possibly think "cars run over 90%
of pedestrians"??? There would be bodies piled up
in the streets of every city!! B^p

And you idiotic twonks think sane people will ignore
the hard facts and reputable research, and pay attention to
the pathetic shitdribble you and your boyfriend spout!?


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA AA!


>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> No, I bought mine to go bush and tow a boat.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> Says a pencil-neck. **** sake, does this dill really belive this shit?
>
>
>>>"There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
>>>because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.
>>
>
> I think Scruby is one of those pissants who is afraid of his own shadow.
>
>
>>>"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."
>>
>
> Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.
>
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> Only when driven by dickheads.
>
>
>>>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,
>>
>
> Oh, so the turds a hypocrite, as well.
>
> Meddling in other people's lives, but it's okay for him to own a 4WD.
> ****ing Stalinist.
>
> >> 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.
>>
>
> I don't live in a remote area, but I go to remote areas. How do we resolve
> that, Scruby, you dickhead.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> Of course he would. Geez, those bloody stickers could have someone's eye
> out.
>
>
>>>"In the bush every young driver wants to drive a Holden ute with a
>>>bullbar," he said.
>>
>
> He says that like it's a bad thing.
>
>
>>>"It's a testosterone thing, it's all about 'mine is bigger than yours'."
>>
>
> What, is this **** a mind reader?
>
>

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.com wrote:
> Brash wrote:
>
>>"Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote in message
>>news:ga37f.26369$U51.22679@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>"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
>>>
>>That's what I said. Dickhead.
>>
>>
>>>>>>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 blame 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.
>>>
>>>Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians,

If car's ran over 90% of pedestrians there would be
hundreds of thousands of dead clogging the footpaths.

You two should stop shagging each other stupid! B^D

>>> they should be banned.

The fascists solution to everythinbg they can't understand,
or don't like.. and they sure don't like the HARD FACTS;

"Of the 36 deaths that they recorded between, I think
it was 1996 and 1998, all of which occurred on driveways
involving young children and low-speed collisions,
that four-wheel drives were involved in 50 per cent
of those crashes, compared to passenger cars that
were only involved in 20 per cent."
- PROFESSOR BRIAN FILDES, MONASH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTRE

"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
less visibility."
- PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
vehicles and gave them a star rating. The results
varied dramatically and not always as you might expect.
A 2-year-old child of average height is invisible
behind the Diahatsu Charade hatch up to a distance
of just over 2m. For a Land Rover Discovery,
that black spot stretches out to a mammoth 20m."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1489663.htm

"The relationship always is visibility
of the car. So in general, the
big four-wheel drives have got less visibility. "

The facts are not difficult to understand, so why do you
****ing liars try to make up ridiculous crap when it's
so easy to show you are full of shit?


>>I think Stalinists like Scruby and Faghands should be banned.
>>
>
> Nahh.. don't ban the bludgers, let tehm be useful and productive
> members of society, and use their bodies as crash test dummies for four
> wheel drive bullbars.

pathetic wankers, if you can't refute the FACTS, and just
stand around licking each others tools, why don't you get a room.

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>No, The Monash University Accident Research Committee has
>researched the hard facts which show that 50% of the driveway
>'accidents' that kill children involved 4WDs.
Actually you are wrong, it has been sprouted in the papers and on the
news and by the transport minister himself that it is not 50%.. TRY
AGAIN.

>You, on the other hand just make shit up, and it's dribbling
>from your chin;
rocks, glass houses?


>Actually you said "cars run over 90% of pedestrians", which was
>complete nonsense, totally fabricated bullshit.
what else runs them over? Pushbikes, steam rollers, trucks and?

I forgot how much fun and bullshit occurs from the experts in
aus.cars!

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
>less visibility."
> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:


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

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

[Ext User(Resound)]

<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.
>

See, that's what I love when we get together...the reasoned debate, the
subtle nuanced interplay of logic and passion, conveyed by the most
carefully chosen phrases. I particularly like "left wing wanking" and "skate
board [sic] dole bludger". It couldn't more clearly express what a
testosterone fuelled, beer gutted, knee-jerk thinking couch potato you
really are. Have fun with the trucks. We'll be here to tell you how to
adjust your saddle when petrol's $15/litre.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Birdman" <myknickersfu_kew@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijdsl1105kkpohdblh39nc6hv7j0hml41k@4ax.com...
> >"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
>>four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
>>less visibility."
>> - PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:
>
>
>>"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
>>measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
>>vehicles and gave them a star rating.
>
> ... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
> other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

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

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

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

No it wasn't.

"A 2-year-old child of average height is invisible behind the Diahatsu
Charade hatch up to a distance of just over 2m. For a Land Rover
Discovery, that black spot stretches out to a mammoth 20m. But
surprisingly, the Holden Commodore, while much smaller, is not much
safer. Its blind spot is nearly 17m long. "

The report made clear that car's with high boots and reduced
rear visibility were also a problem, bu the 4WD's were worse..

> or other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

Read the report, you idiot

it suggests a number of reasonable actions,
discusses the rear camera's in the Lexus, and othe sensor
devices, even driving forwards out of driveways.

I never mentioned banning 4WD's, it is a measure of the
unconcern you liars have for the children killed that
you keep making shit up rather than rationally consider
ways of reducing the tragic deaths.

Banning 4WDs is not necessary, their sales are plummeting with
rising oil prices

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

tropicus@gmail.com wrote:
> 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?

the tory government treats them as a protected species.

They won't even consider regulating junk food ads on
childrens TV, something every health authority
and parents groupo, even the governments own reports,
have recommended...yet these same nanny staters are
taking away your wages, your conditions and your rights,
after taking away the guns you might have used to
defend them!

.....

> a big-government tool

don't kid yourself.. you are just a tiny tool.

>
>>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?
>

Because the number of dead kids means they DON'T MAKE
THEM SAFE!

"Of the 36 deaths that they recorded between, I think
it was 1996 and 1998, all of which occurred on driveways
involving young children and low-speed collisions,
that four-wheel drives were involved in 50 per cent
of those crashes, compared to passenger cars that
were only involved in 20 per cent."
- PROFESSOR BRIAN FILDES, MONASH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTRE

"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
less visibility."
- PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:

"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
vehicles and gave them a star rating. The results
varied dramatically and not always as you might expect.
A 2-year-old child of average height is invisible
behind the Diahatsu Charade hatch up to a distance
of just over 2m. For a Land Rover Discovery,
that black spot stretches out to a mammoth 20m."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1489663.htm

"The relationship always is visibility
of the car. So in general, the
big four-wheel drives have got less visibility. "