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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Spear and Magic Helmet" <speed_saves@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130286577.580471.297440@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> <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.
>

Ah, selective reading. It's a wonderful thing. The Commodore sedan mentioned
was also in the absolute worst 5 of ALL vehicles tested. Given that, it's
not surprising that only two 4WDs were worse. Reading the whole thing only
the 4WDs equipped with a camera and small "softroader" type vehicles rated
four or five stars (a total of 4 vehicles out of the 47 tested) and
everything else had a minimum distance to view test object exceeding 5
metres. One of them (the Prado 5 door) was so bad it appears that they ran
out of room to test its visibility distance as it's only listed as >22
metres. Eleven 4WDs tested as having a visibility distance of more than 10
metres as opposed to five large cars (although admittedly they tested fewer
large cars than 4WDs). Don't believe me (just to save you the trouble of
accusing me of lying), read the full summary.

http://www.sgio.com.au/pub/sgio/motor/car_research/reversing_visibility/media/reversing-visibility-index.pdf

Looks like the best rated vehicles are small cars and sports cars (which
tend to be small anyway). Odds on the small cars have the best rear quarter
vision too. Given that small cars are going to save about $1,100-1,200/year
just on fuel (assuming 15,000km and $1.20/litre) never mind the huge
difference in maintenance costs, you're better off driving a small car most
of the time and hiring a 4WD when you've got a need for one in any case. If
you think your masculinity can withstand the terrible strain of driving a
regular car, that is.

Go on, tell me I'm full of shit. But be prepared to back it up with more
than bluster, personal opinions and insults.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

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

Funny enough car owners also get defensive when their toys are questioned.
Seems to support all the hoon articles by your logic.
You expect us to join in on the 4WD bashing sessions, if we didn't reply you
would all be in a fairy land where you believed no one used them offroad,
because we can fool you all with a quick wash at carlovers.

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

Resound wrote:
> Go on, tell me I'm full of shit.

No. What you stated isnt shit. Why did you take my comments so personal
I wonder. You dont seem the type to try and spin conclusions off cherry
picked results and then sweep the data under the mat -- as you've shown
by showing some actaul data in your response.

Pity you generalised about maintenance costs of a 4wd though and fuel
consumption.

My point is that those that rant and rave about these so called 4wds
being unique killer machines cos you cant see out the back is flawed as
there are plenty of cars that are worse than plenty of 4wds.

Having said that and to save you the trouble -- I can read and I can
see that a 4wd is THE worst of all. But again, that doesnt negate my
point.

Interesting that the landbruiser -- the one everyone loves to hate -- a
variant of it (100 series) beat ALL of the large cars tested. 80 series
didnt do to bad either.

By the way I dont drive a 4wd in case you're wondering so you can stop
your concern about my masculinity, penis size, and all that other stuff
that seems to get passed off as fact.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Kim Hawtin" <khawtin@ratbaggames.com> wrote in message
news:4us233-upb.ln1@0251adl.ratbaggames.com...
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>> "Ray Peace" <ferret@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:435ea559$1@news.alphalink.com.au...
>>
>>>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.

Well believe it or not, most Offroad Club memebers do live in urban area's.

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



>
>> 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(Noddy)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-26723-15884-

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

What the ****? :)

Being one of the best selling family sedans in the country for quite a
while, it's quite popular and very normal. The numbers of them out there is
also a very good reason to mention it.

Dare I ask, but what's a "normal" car according to you?

> Cyclists have learnt that you can't trust 4WDs, and we have learnt
> that you actively stay away from Commodores.

Most of us who were smart enough to give up our kid's toys and get a
driver's licence like to stay well away from the people who never grew up
and continue to ride push bikes :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Plodder" <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:435ec78b$0$8604$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "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.

Yes, all our 10yo 4WD's are Toorak tractors for status reasons.

> 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).

Trucks have more ground clearance than the average 4WD, why do they need it?

> 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?

How do you know it's only 2 weeks, we can go camping every 2nd weekend, an
you would never know, the idea is actually to get away from closed minded
idiots anyway, so the less that know about it or can get to these places the
better.

>> > 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.

You too, just because you don't see them offroad, doesn't mean they don't,
most of us swap tyres back to road tread after weekends.

>> > 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.

We also need to prove people with 300kw Falcodores with "never sat on" back
seats have ligit uses too, towing etc must be logged or they should own 4cyl
ecobubble cars.

> 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...

Yeah a ball of fun when you are a ligit used and get labelled as wanker. And
some people wonder why other people respond aggressively.

>> 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(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Spear and Magic Helmet" <speed_saves@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130299339.190429.313110@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Resound wrote:
>> Go on, tell me I'm full of shit.
>
> No. What you stated isnt shit. Why did you take my comments so personal
> I wonder. You dont seem the type to try and spin conclusions off cherry
> picked results and then sweep the data under the mat -- as you've shown
> by showing some actaul data in your response.

Probably because you started by refering to people as "dumb ****s"


>
> Pity you generalised about maintenance costs of a 4wd though and fuel
> consumption.
>
> My point is that those that rant and rave about these so called 4wds
> being unique killer machines cos you cant see out the back is flawed as
> there are plenty of cars that are worse than plenty of 4wds.
>
> Having said that and to save you the trouble -- I can read and I can
> see that a 4wd is THE worst of all. But again, that doesnt negate my
> point.
>
> Interesting that the landbruiser -- the one everyone loves to hate -- a
> variant of it (100 series) beat ALL of the large cars tested. 80 series
> didnt do to bad either.
>
> By the way I dont drive a 4wd in case you're wondering so you can stop
> your concern about my masculinity, penis size, and all that other stuff
> that seems to get passed off as fact.
>

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> "Kim Hawtin" <khawtin@ratbaggames.com> wrote in message
> news:4us233-upb.ln1@0251adl.ratbaggames.com...
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> Well believe it or not, most Offroad Club memebers do live in urban area's.
>
> Just because the wife uses it for 10kms a day shopping and picking kids up
> while hubsband has Corolla at work, doesn't mean it doesn't get used offroad
> on weekends. We are down to forcing families to buy a 3rd vehicle just to do
> 50km a week.
<snip>

The fact that "most offroad club members do live in urban areas" does
not imply that most 4wd in urban areas belong to offroad club members.

That's like saying that frogs are green therefore all green things are
frogs.

Tam

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"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".......................

Probably also to do with the fact wagons are better for reversing visibility
than sedans, most 4WD's are wagons, can't actually think of a real 4WD
sedan, especially as you can see exactly where the back corner of the
vehicle is unlike guessing in many sedans.

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Noddy wrote:
>
> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-26723-15884-
>
> > You keep bringing up the Holden Commodore. It's not a normal car.
>
> What the ****? :)
>
> Being one of the best selling family sedans in the country for quite a
> while, it's quite popular and very normal. The numbers of them out there is
> also a very good reason to mention it.
>
> Dare I ask, but what's a "normal" car according to you?
>
> > Cyclists have learnt that you can't trust 4WDs, and we have learnt
> > that you actively stay away from Commodores.
>
> Most of us who were smart enough to give up our kid's toys and get a
> driver's licence like to stay well away from the people who never grew up
> and continue to ride push bikes :)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

I wish all drivers shared that attitude, and gave cyclists a bit of
distance :)

Tam

[Ext User(Dan---)]

Noddy wrote:
> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-26723-15884-
>
>
>>You keep bringing up the Holden Commodore. It's not a normal car.
>
>
> What the ****? :)
>
> Being one of the best selling family sedans in the country for quite a
> while, it's quite popular and very normal. The numbers of them out there is
> also a very good reason to mention it.
>
> Dare I ask, but what's a "normal" car according to you?

Probably a 2cv with pedals instead of an engine and gearbox. ;-)


--
Regards
Dan.
Official Sponsor for International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435eeed7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "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?

Easy we all fit camera's to 4WD's then sedans become killing machines.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Tamyka Bell" <t.bell@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:435F0350.4863C9E4@uq.edu.au...
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>>
>> "Kim Hawtin" <khawtin@ratbaggames.com> wrote in message
>> news:4us233-upb.ln1@0251adl.ratbaggames.com...
> <snip>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Well believe it or not, most Offroad Club memebers do live in urban
>> area's.
>>
>> Just because the wife uses it for 10kms a day shopping and picking kids
>> up
>> while hubsband has Corolla at work, doesn't mean it doesn't get used
>> offroad
>> on weekends. We are down to forcing families to buy a 3rd vehicle just to
>> do
>> 50km a week.
> <snip>
>
> The fact that "most offroad club members do live in urban areas" does
> not imply that most 4wd in urban areas belong to offroad club members.
>
> That's like saying that frogs are green therefore all green things are
> frogs.
>
> Tam

Thing is most people have absolutely no idea how many 4WD's do go offroad,
they just label every one they see with the same brush. Many who aren't in
clubs also go offroad regularly, you have obviously never been near Rainbow
Beach, Fraser, Moreton, Stradbroke or to any of the state forests, dozen
dedicated 4WD parks & 2 weekly offroad competitions around Brisbane on
weekends.

You are trying to say because you see no water in the pond, frogs don't
swim.

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> Probably because you started by refering to people as "dumb ****s"

The key being exactly _what_ people I was referring to as dumb ****s. I
thought it was clearly inferred in the rest of what I wrote (hint:
sheeple). Obviously not. What a dumb **** I am.

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

D Walford wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
>> 20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.

> What is a large 4WD?

Don't get your knickers in a knot. It was me that didn't remember the make,
they did say what it was, I didn't take much notice. Looked like a
Landcrusher to me but may have been anything else.

Theo

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>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?
I agree.. Like car alarms. They go off these days, nobody gives a
shit.

> The sensors don't pick up everything. Would they pick up a really low lying object reliably? Like a kid lying on the
>ground?
I hazard a guess of no.


>> 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?
I would say yes, unless its some $$$$ sensor, which it wouldnt be if
manufacturers are including it in cars 'free'

>You keep bringing up the Holden Commodore. It's not a normal car.
What is it then? A space shuttle?


>Cyclists have learnt that you can't trust 4WDs, and we have learnt
>that you actively stay away from Commodores.
After riding motorcycles for 19yrs, I would have to say I'd trust 4wds
and trucks hours before I would trust any cars to be honest. People
are basically given licenses these days. but thats another arguement
for another day.

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Noddy wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
>> 20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.

> What a load of crap :)
>
> My driveway is 22 metres from the footpath to my garage door, and if
> the ABC thinks that I couldn't sit in anything at one end and not see
> the ground at the other they're playing with themselves :)

That's quite possible :-). My driveway is about 100 metres with a loop at
the house so I never have to reverse. (except out of the garage).

Theo

[Ext User(Dan---)]

**** just noticed this was x-posted to aus.bicyle

God help us all now.

--
Regards
Dan.
Official Sponsor for International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Noddy wrote:

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

They're too quick for you, eh?

Theo

[Ext User(Birdman)]

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

They are usually driving the smallest shitboxes on the road and still
struggle to park them, drive them, specially while doing 120 in a 100
zone puttin on makeup, and talkin on the phone. They also have issues
with using rear view mirrors, specially while changing lanes, or when
coming to a red light, and manage to stop their 1000kg shitbox in
front of a B double in 20ft, then wonder why theres a B train parked
on infront of them via their roof..