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

[Ext User(Ray Peace)]

Resound wrote:
>>>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.
>
>
Greetings,
4WDs are actually more dangerous than conventional cars for occupants
because of the high incidence of roll-over crashes due to higher centre
of gravity. The figures are 15 fatalities per 100,000 for 4WDs and 9 per
100,000 for conventional cars. Their `aggressivity' on the road is also
rated as higher. I wouldn't want one under any circumstances.
Regards,
Ray.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:40:12 +1000, Ray Peace
<ferret@alphalink.com.au> scribbled thusly:

>Resound wrote:
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>Greetings,
> 4WDs are actually more dangerous than conventional cars for occupants
>because of the high incidence of roll-over crashes due to higher centre
>of gravity. The figures are 15 fatalities per 100,000 for 4WDs and 9 per
>100,000 for conventional cars. Their `aggressivity' on the road is also
>rated as higher. I wouldn't want one under any circumstances.
>Regards,
> Ray.

OK, so now you need to look at the number of accidents and the number
of passengers in each vehicle to make any sense of those figures.

Ya see, most people buy a 4WD because they want to put lots of people
in em so when a big one happens there is more likelihood of there
being a number of passengers, not just one.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Ray Peace" <ferret@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:435ea559$1@news.alphalink.com.au...
> Resound wrote:
>>>>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.
> Greetings,
> 4WDs are actually more dangerous than conventional cars for occupants
> because of the high incidence of roll-over crashes due to higher centre of
> gravity. The figures are 15 fatalities per 100,000 for 4WDs and 9 per
> 100,000 for conventional cars. Their `aggressivity' on the road is also
> rated as higher. I wouldn't want one under any circumstances.
> Regards,
> Ray.

Only 4WD's I've seen rollover have been offroad, and you play hard you got
to expect these things, I've seen vehicles without clearance attempt similar
terrain and end up perched with 4 wheels not touching the ground, much less
fun.

I dare say vans have a higher rollover incedence than sedans too, should we
ban them too?

They aren't as "aggressive" if you run decent oil.

I dare say you never realise what other circumstances there are in this
country for non yuppie types. You would gladly wait 3 days on an outback
road in a Falcodore that's either bogged or got shagged suspension, I
suspect.

[Ext User(Plodder)]

<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

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote in message
news:mah7f.27013$U51.552@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1130203622.546998.166380@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

<SNIP>
> > 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

I recently got back from cycle touring in Italy, Germany, bits of Austria
and Holland. I've also hired bikes in various parts of Europe in the past.

I can't work out how you missed the bicycles in the metropolises. I saw
heaps and heaps. Bicycles are a normal form of transport in most of Europe,
with drivers who drive according to the conditions as they are, not as
they'd like them to be, with infrastructure and road rules that support all
transport. That's coupled with drivers who, although they may look as though
the traffic is chaotic in places, drive well and with much more awareness
than us slack-arses with too much room and an attitude that we own the road;
we don't - as cyclists, drivers, peds, whatever. We simply have a contingent
right to use the road.

That right can be removed if we don't do the righty. I think it's high time
we got our collective heads out of our arses and worked with each other to
collectively use the road. It's not a war, FFS!

Maybe everyone left their bikes at home when you were there...?

Frank

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:05:07 +0800, "Plodder" <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM>
scribbled thusly:

>. What I do see, though, is 4WD owners getting all
>defensive when someone questions their toys. Seems to support what the
>articles say...
>
>Frank
>

Ahhh, I get it, Defense is proof of guilt!



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(dave)]

Plodder wrote:
> "Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:mah7f.27013$U51.552@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:1130203622.546998.166380@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>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
>
>
> I recently got back from cycle touring in Italy, Germany, bits of Austria
> and Holland. I've also hired bikes in various parts of Europe in the past.
>
> I can't work out how you missed the bicycles in the metropolises. I saw
> heaps and heaps. Bicycles are a normal form of transport in most of Europe,
> with drivers who drive according to the conditions as they are, not as
> they'd like them to be, with infrastructure and road rules that support all
> transport. That's coupled with drivers who, although they may look as though
> the traffic is chaotic in places, drive well and with much more awareness
> than us slack-arses with too much room and an attitude that we own the road;
> we don't - as cyclists, drivers, peds, whatever. We simply have a contingent
> right to use the road.
>
> That right can be removed if we don't do the righty. I think it's high time
> we got our collective heads out of our arses and worked with each other to
> collectively use the road. It's not a war, FFS!
>
> Maybe everyone left their bikes at home when you were there...?
>
> Frank
>
>
You either look for bikes and see em. Or you don;t and don;t

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

dave wrote:
> You either look for bikes and see em.
> Or you don;t and don;t

Just like you either look for 4WDers driving with due courtesy/manners
and see em, or you don't and don't. :)

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435e0d38$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> With your car parked right at the garage door the corner of the house is
> directly behind you?

No, the corner of the house is around 5 mtrs from the back of the car, and I
can see the ground at that distance.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Plodder)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130208408.081163.121160@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> 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!

It would have sensible to have minimum standards that don't allow a vehicle
with such poor visibility to be built in the first place.

>
>
> > 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?

Stupid comment. There is a legitimate, necessary reason for truckies to sit
so high; we all rely on the transport of goods. It may well be that *some*
truckies are truckies because it fulfils some fantasy, but you wouldn't
generalise about that any more than the Toorak taxi defines a 4WD owner.
Some other high vehicles also have a legitimate reason for their height.
Nobody's complaining about them. The gripe is with the shiny Landcruiser
which goes no further off-road than the lawn. Most 4WDs are not ever used
for their intended purpose (driving in very adverse conditions) and are used
for tasks easily accomplished with a conventional vehicle (car, bike, feet,
whatever).
I can't work out why anyone needs to push that much metal around for a year
so they can take their 2 weeks in the bush holiday annually. Why not use a
smaller, safer car and use the savings to hire a Landcruiser for your hols?
It works for me - I used to have 4WDs when I lived on a farm. Now I live in
the Perth 'burbs, why would I need one?

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

Funny how the figures seem to support the claim though. Remember it says
"far more likely" not "will" Do try and think in terms other than black and
white.

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

I agree. You want the wank factor? Pay. There should be solid exemptions for
legitimate use so cockies and so-on are not disadvantaged. Even towing a
boat or big van may be a legitimate use, as is recreational 4WDing. But
there needs to be some way to prove that the vehicle is needed and used for
a set minimum time per annum for it's intended purpose. Deficiency
compensation doesn't fit in that list. Don't know how you'd do that without
an army of inspectors. It is, however, a way of forcing people to think more
about their decision.
It might even help if the rest of us laugh openly at the wank-factor drivers
instead of snickering behind their backs. Remember the "Hey Charger" adverts
(showing my age here!)? Maybe there needs to be a "Hey Wanker" gesture
campaign...

>
> 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...

Agreed here. Bigots exist on both sides of the fence. Most of us are
somewhere between the extremes.

Frank

[Ext User(tropicus@gmail.com)]

fasgnadh wrote:
> 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!

LOL. You moan about the "nanny state", but you demand regulation of
4WDs, junk food advertising and wants working class parents to send
middle-class teenagers to university.

You're a hypocrite of the highest order FagBags.

>
> ....
>
> > a big-government tool
>
> don't kid yourself.. I'm just a tiny tool.

Yes, your tiny tool syndrome is obvious

>
> >
> >>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!

So why aren't you demanding the regulation of Diahatsu charades as
well? They kill kids too. Especially when those same people could be
riding bicyles.

What a blubbering nanny-state hypocrite you are.

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/reversing-visibility/index.shtml>

This was posted in another thread in aus.cars. It's an NRMA study that
shows only *2* 4WDs were worse than a Commodore Sedan yet the media
happily goes off and says "large 4WDs" when they are in fact only
talking about these 2 4WDs. And you sheeple just eat it up and ask for
more. Hahahahaa you dumb ****s.

[Ext User(Kim Hawtin)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> "Ray Peace" <ferret@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435ea559$1@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
>>Resound wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>Greetings,
>>4WDs are actually more dangerous than conventional cars for occupants
>>because of the high incidence of roll-over crashes due to higher centre of
>>gravity. The figures are 15 fatalities per 100,000 for 4WDs and 9 per
>>100,000 for conventional cars. Their `aggressivity' on the road is also
>>rated as higher. I wouldn't want one under any circumstances.
>>Regards,
>>Ray.
....
> I dare say you never realise what other circumstances there are in this
> country for non yuppie types.

i dare say you have hit the nail on the head.
4WDs are being used as luxury vehicles in built-up and urban areas.

you drive your 4WD in "offroad" situations. no big deal.
you probably even have the skills to drive it there...

my experience is that most the drivers of 4WDs in urban areas,
do not have the skills to drive. let alone drive a 4WD.

> You would gladly wait 3 days on an outback road in a Falcodore that's
> either bogged or got shagged suspension, I suspect.

been there, got the tshirt.

Kim

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>No it wasn't.
Um yes it was.



>Banning 4WDs is not necessary, their sales are plummeting with rising oil prices
LMAO, amazing, on the news 2 days ago, they are UP 7% for the last
month...
so, you have been proven again to be a twonk.



this should **** you up too


Story from this mornings "The West Australian"

4WDs tops for rear visibility

...............Cameras can make cars safer while reversing, but the car
industry says audible front parking and rear reversing sensors are
better.

*****************************
However, in a recent test of reversing visibility, two four wheel
drives finished in the top fiveof the 222 vehicles tested.
*****************************

Vehicles tested included 4WDs, people movers, utility and sport,
luxury, large, medium, medium small and small sedans.
At the other end of the scale, Australias number one selling car, the
Holden Commodore, featured among the worst, along with the Holden
Crewman.
Only one 4WD featured in the bottom group.
"Contrary to popular belief, SGIO's research shows that 4WDs perform
as well, if not better, when it comes to reversing visibility compared
to popular sedans" Mr Kendall said.
"Many 4WDs actually outperformed some of Australia's top selling
medium and large sedans. The Holden Commodore sedan, for example,
fared badly with no stars and a 27 sqm blind
area".......................

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-26, Birdman (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Story from this mornings "The West Australian"
>
> 4WDs tops for rear visibility
>
> ..............Cameras can make cars safer while reversing, but the car
> industry says audible front parking and rear reversing sensors are
> better.

Unfortunately, like all safety devices on cars, they just encourage
people to drive less carefully.

Some people have come to rely on their ABS being able to do the
thinking for them. I've quite often seen cars being driven to an
instersection far too quickly, and if there were any oil or gravel on
the road there, they probably wouldn't have stopped in time.

So what happens when people get used to their audible sensor, and so
learn to rely on it when parallel parking, instead of actually looking
behind them? The sensors don't pick up everything. Would they pick
up a really low lying object reliably? Like a kid lying on the
ground? Would it have uniform coverage behind the vehicle? Would
there be a spot where a kid could stand that would be missed by the
sensors?

> Vehicles tested included 4WDs, people movers, utility and sport,
> luxury, large, medium, medium small and small sedans.
> At the other end of the scale, Australias number one selling car, the
> Holden Commodore, featured among the worst, along with the Holden
> Crewman.
> Only one 4WD featured in the bottom group.
> "Contrary to popular belief, SGIO's research shows that 4WDs perform
> as well, if not better, when it comes to reversing visibility compared
> to popular sedans" Mr Kendall said.
> "Many 4WDs actually outperformed some of Australia's top selling
> medium and large sedans. The Holden Commodore sedan, for example,
> fared badly with no stars and a 27 sqm blind
> area".......................

You keep bringing up the Holden Commodore. It's not a normal car.
Cyclists have learnt that you can't trust 4WDs, and we have learnt
that you actively stay away from Commodores.

--
TimC
Chairman: We continue with an afternoon of numerical stimulations.
-- An astronomy talk

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

TimC wrote:
> You keep bringing up the Holden Commodore.
> It's not a normal car.

You can narrow down the scope of the argument to suit your comments all
you want. But the fact is that the commodore is a VERY common car with
worse rearward visibility than the VAST MAJORITY of 4WDs.

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

And the irony here is -- unless I'm very much mistaken* -- is that
uncle bully drives a commodore.

* you know who.

[Ext User(Dre)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:enlrl1dm5hpinujsupi51su00776873t2l@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:53:40 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au>
> scribbled thusly:
> >
> >I know you didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but it was an absurd
> >suggestion.
> >
> >15 meters is not very far short of the length of your average semi
trailer,
> >and I find it rather difficult to believe that you'd need to be that far
> >away from a toddler before you could see it, even in something like a
> >Landcruiser. My vehicle has excellent rear visibility as it is, and I've
> >complimented this by fitting one of those convex view panels. If you're
not
> >familiar with them, this particular type is a piece of plastic film
around
> >the size of an A4 piece of paper, and it sticks to the rear window by
> >suction. With it fitted, I'm *almost* able to see the tip of the towbar.
> >
> >I think this whole argument is academic anyway, as I believe the vehicle
> >type is irrelevant in such accidents. Responsibility rests with the
driver,
> >and blaming the vehicle because "I couldn't see" is a pretty piss poor
> >excuse for laziness.
>
> Hmmm, I wonder how far a kid in a Gemini with the seat laid right back
> can see?
> You know, the ones with their eyes at dash level.
> My guess is that they see horizontal
>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Funny you mention that, I watched one cross an intersection in front of me
with the seat sooo far back, the guy actually had to move forward in his
recliner to see over the dash so he didn't hit the pole in the island he was
passing. I couldn't believe it! You could only see his head above the
bottom of the window...

Cheers Dre

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Birdman" <myknickersfu_kew@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9ktl1p3ke9ncii0albcu1158kb8ebi234@4ax.com...
> >No it wasn't.
> Um yes it was.
>
>
>
>>Banning 4WDs is not necessary, their sales are plummeting with rising oil
>>prices
> LMAO, amazing, on the news 2 days ago, they are UP 7% for the last
> month...
> so, you have been proven again to be a twonk.
>
>
>
> this should **** you up too
>
>
> Story from this mornings "The West Australian"
>
> 4WDs tops for rear visibility
>
> ..............Cameras can make cars safer while reversing, but the car
> industry says audible front parking and rear reversing sensors are
> better.
>
> *****************************
> However, in a recent test of reversing visibility, two four wheel
> drives finished in the top fiveof the 222 vehicles tested.
> *****************************
>
> Vehicles tested included 4WDs, people movers, utility and sport,
> luxury, large, medium, medium small and small sedans.
> At the other end of the scale, Australias number one selling car, the
> Holden Commodore, featured among the worst, along with the Holden
> Crewman.
> Only one 4WD featured in the bottom group.
> "Contrary to popular belief, SGIO's research shows that 4WDs perform
> as well, if not better, when it comes to reversing visibility compared
> to popular sedans" Mr Kendall said.
> "Many 4WDs actually outperformed some of Australia's top selling
> medium and large sedans. The Holden Commodore sedan, for example,
> fared badly with no stars and a 27 sqm blind
> area".......................

I see that the 4WDs mentioned were all ones with cameras. Without those they
would have performed far worse. "Without the camera, the Lexus GS430 would
have an invisible area of 15.3 metres and a two-star rating, compared to its
excellent complete visibility and five-star rating." They do seem more or
less comparable to large cars in the rearward visibility stakes, looking at
the full summary.(
http://www.sgio.com.au/pub/sgio/motor/car_research/reversing_visibility/media/reversing-visibility-index.pdf )
Mind you, the group that stands out as easily having the best rearward
visibility overall is the small cars. Odds on that their rear quarter vision
is a hell of a lot better than the larger vehicles as well (especially if
the driver can be arsed to do headchecks). Or would commuting in a small car
be a challenge to one's masculinity?

[Ext User(Noons)]

Plodder wrote:
> It would have sensible to have minimum standards that don't allow a vehicle
> with such poor visibility to be built in the first place.

100% in agreement. That's why this whole stupid 4WD blame game
doesn't make any sense. It's nothing to do with how many
wheels provide traction. The whole thing is moronic beyond belief.
Once more some politically correct dimwit section of the community
is being allowed to obfuscate what the *real* problems are.


> > > 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?
>
> Stupid comment. There is a legitimate, necessary reason for truckies to sit

Not so. It's got nothing to do with transport of goods
anyway. As for the stupidity, ask that question of the
hundreds of people all around Australia who have had a
truckie drugged out of his brains drive ten tonnes of
metal through their lifes. I'll bet they won't call it
stupid...


> truckies are truckies because it fulfils some fantasy, but you wouldn't
> generalise about that any more than the Toorak taxi defines a 4WD owner.

Exactly. In fact, even to call them "Toorak taxies"
*is* itself an unwarranted generalisation.

> Nobody's complaining about them. The gripe is with the shiny Landcruiser

Then call a spade a spade: instead of blaming ALL 4wds,
blame the Landcruiser. There *is* a difference between
that and a Rav4 or a Subaru, for example.

> I can't work out why anyone needs to push that much metal around for a year

Nevertheless, it's their right if they want to. And since it is not
illegal, it is not up to you, I or anyone else to pass comment.

> so they can take their 2 weeks in the bush holiday annually. Why not use a
> smaller, safer car and use the savings to hire a Landcruiser for your hols?

Because they don't want to feed the pockets of organized tourist
exploitation rackets? How's that for a reason?

> It works for me - I used to have 4WDs when I lived on a farm. Now I live in
> the Perth 'burbs, why would I need one?

Nothing wrong with that. Just don't ask everyone else
to live in the same suburb as you, that's all. :)

> Funny how the figures seem to support the claim though. Remember it says
> "far more likely" not "will" Do try and think in terms other than black and
> white.

You cannot call a study "scientific" that concludes with
"far more likely". It's total bollocks. Like I said.

> I agree. You want the wank factor? Pay.

They already are taxed higher. Let's stop the
ludicrous envy blame game.

> Don't know how you'd do that without
> an army of inspectors.

Exactly. The whole thing is deranged and unfeasible other than
as an exercise in stupid politically correct mass histeria.
They should try soccer: it's cheaper and doesn't interfere
with people's lifes as much.


> It might even help if the rest of us laugh openly at the wank-factor drivers
> instead of snickering behind their backs. Remember the "Hey Charger" adverts
> (showing my age here!)? Maybe there needs to be a "Hey Wanker" gesture
> campaign...

100% in agreement. Disagree with the other points where noted.


> Agreed here. Bigots exist on both sides of the fence. Most of us are
> somewhere between the extremes.

Bugger: we're agreeing too much. This is not healthy
Usenet aus.politics! What the heck is going on?
;)