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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f01d8@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "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.
>
>

Some of us are bright enough to realise that just because it doesn't burn
fossil fuel doesn't mean that it's not real transport. There are some good
reasons for cycling instead of driving. Note the plural...not one reason but
a list of 'em. If you're actually interested in having informed opinions
rather than kneejerk reactions, I and plenty of others would be more than
happy to provide you with that list. In terms of rearward vision, which is
what we're talking about here, the Commodore is clearly an aberration and
therefore NOT a normal car, regardless of how many are sold.

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

fasgnadh wrote:

> "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

So what ran over the other 30%? Motorcycles and bicycles seem unlikely as
they are diffcult to back under power and have good visibility. Trucks
maybe?

Theo

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130297043.536410.81380@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> 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...
>

So exactly how would you suggest bulk goods are transported?

>
>> 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.

Specious. "Landcruiser" is a generic term in that context and you know it.
Substitute any large 4WD.

>
>> 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.
>

It's still demonstrates a mentality that says "screw you, I'm ok". Whether
it's illegal or not doesn't mean that it's not reprehensible.

>> 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?
>

As opposed to lining the pockets of banks and oil companies? Yeah, I can see
that car rental companies are certainly the sorts of businesses that you'd
want to spend thousands of dollars per year to actively deny business to.

>> 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.
>

There's that black and white thinking again. Actually, most studies of this
nature are going to wind up talking about probabilities. We're talking about
a number of similar incidents (otherwise they wouldn't be a concern) so they
look at what skews the stats. Statistics involve probabilities. In other
words a 4WD isn't definitely going to crush a small child or kill a
pedestrian or main or kill the occupants of another vehicle in a collision
by the mere fact of its existance, but it's far more likely to than a
conventional vehicle.

>> I agree. You want the wank factor? Pay.
>
> They already are taxed higher. Let's stop the
> ludicrous envy blame game.
>

What pair of arse cheeks did you pluck that from between? Tariffs on
passenger motor vehicles is 10%, tariffs on light commercial and 4WD
vehicles is 5%. Sales tax and luxury vehicle tax is applied equally
regardless of whether the vehicle is a 4WD or not.

>> 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?
> ;)
>

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Birdman wrote:
>
> > 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.

Perhaps you shouldn't hang out in those sorts of areas. You might meet
some educated women elsewhere. My experience with women drivers is that
they are about on par with men, though less likely to let you in when
you're merging, they are also less likely to run you off the road
because of ??? perhaps a testosterone spike?

> 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..

The makeup one is the only one I've seen. Also I'd say I see more women
texting while driving. Mostly it's men I see talking on the phone. The
parking one is interesting. I've never had a problem, but I guess it
depends on who taught you how, because I've seen some shockers.

Tam

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Noons wrote:

> 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.

Just to make it more interesting. Due to the popularity of the AWD form
factor, the Tucson (whoever makes that) will now be produced in a cheaper,
lighter, 2WD version.
;-)

theo

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> "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.

Er... actually I have been to those areas, most recently 4WD on Rainbow
Beach (aka the 4 lane highway)... personally I prefer my beaches and
bushland to look and sound serene and not ripped up by noisy 4WD
vehicles, but I appreciate that people enjoy 4WDing, I do too. I wonder
how you drew your conclusion...

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

Actually, I wasn't trying to say anything, except that your original
statement didn't actually oppose Kim's statement.

Tam

[Ext User(Resound)]

"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.
>

That was a response to the "sheeple" and "dumb ****s" remarks. You'll find
most of the people in aus.bicycle are distinctly NOT media sheep. We
wouldn't want to be...we're the subject of media beat-ups often enough.

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

I used to work as a grease-monkey in a Mitsubishi dealership and I've worked
retail in a couple of parts stores (Bursons, Autobarn). Parts for 4WDs most
definitely ARE more expensive and the maintenance scheduling and man-hours
to service 4WDs is higher than for conventional vehicles. Look at things
like things like the cost of tyres too. Something I hadn't thought of and
have no numbers for (although Google will be my friend if anyone wants to
claim that 4WDs are notably cheaper in this regard) but what are insurance
premiums like?

> 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.
>

Yeah that was a cheap shot. But why else would someone commute in one daily
with all of its attendent deficiencies in an urban environment rather than
save money and rent one as needed instead? There's an image thing going on
there somewhere and it's not a very mature one.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:30:48 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
<tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> scribbled thusly:

>Noons wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Just to make it more interesting. Due to the popularity of the AWD form
>factor, the Tucson (whoever makes that) will now be produced in a cheaper,
>lighter, 2WD version.
>;-)
>
>theo
>

Does that mean it won't be capable of killing people?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Dan---" <no1canspamme@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:435f0d3e$0$8662$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> **** 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).

Too late *grin*

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f0f89$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> fasgnadh wrote:
>
>> "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
>
> So what ran over the other 30%? Motorcycles and bicycles seem unlikely as
> they are diffcult to back under power and have good visibility. Trucks
> maybe?
>
> Theo
>

Vans and other commercial vehicles? Just a guess.

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

Resound wrote:
> That was a response to the "sheeple" and "dumb ****s" remarks.
> You'll find most of the people in aus.bicycle are distinctly NOT
> media sheep.

I'll try and reword it again. Only the media sheep should feel that I'm
calling them a dumb **** -- because thats what I meant.

> we're the subject of media beat-ups often enough

Yeah I know. Keep in mind that I didn't know what group you were from
-- only that I didn't recognise you from aus.cars.

> I used to work as a grease-monkey in a Mitsubishi dealership

I can't speak from as much experience as you cos I only speak from
previous ownership and people I know who own them. Granted none of them
are current model things. And Im sure there are extreme examples of
tyre prices in both camps but I used to get mud terrains for 175. Have
a look at the prices of all the 17 inch low profile rubber bands that a
lot of cars come standard with these days. Ouch :O

And it never used to cost me/us much to keep our 4wds on the road (and
off the road).

Hey I dont have a 4wd cos I dont need or want one anymore. I dont know
why youd want to drive something so big around the burbs if thats all
you used it for. Thing is its hard to say who really does take it off
road and how often. Or even needs to tow something really heavy.

There probably are the "fake hero" types out there but I would guess
that they reasonably few in number comparitively speaking which is why
Im against the stereotype.

Yknow I dont think we are really disagreeing with each other much here.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Dan---" <no1canspamme@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:435f0d3e$0$8662$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> **** just noticed this was x-posted to aus.bicyle
>
> God help us all now.

Hey, they ride tredlies on public roads of their own free will.

They've just *gotta* have a sense of humour :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f0e33$1@news.bekkers.com.au...

> They're too quick for you, eh?

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435f0d27$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> Some of us are bright enough to realise that just because it doesn't burn
> fossil fuel doesn't mean that it's not real transport. There are some good
> reasons for cycling instead of driving.

Apart from getting cold, getting sunburnt, getting wet and getting run over,
what are they? :)

(Relax, I was just joking :)

> Note the plural...not one reason but a list of 'em. If you're actually
> interested in having informed opinions rather than kneejerk reactions, I
> and plenty of others would be more than happy to provide you with that
> list.

No thanks.

I'm sure you find it a very rewarding pastime, but it's not for me. If God
had wannted me to ride a bike I powered myself, Harley & Davidson would
never have met.

> In terms of rearward vision, which is what we're talking about here, the
> Commodore is clearly an aberration and therefore NOT a normal car,
> regardless of how many are sold.

So, something only fits the description of "sedan" if it doesn't have a
problem in this area?

Excuse my ignorance, but I personally don't know anyone who wouldn't
describe a Commodore as a good ol' common as muck normal sedan, and the fact
that is has such poor reward visibility doesn't change what it is. To tell
the truth, I don't find the Falcon any better, and we're talking about the
two most popular "sedans" in the country.

If you're going to start excluding vehicles based on individual traits, then
I suggest you drop the "sedan" generic and start being a little more
specific.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f0df2$1@news.bekkers.com.au...

> 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).

Jesus....

Get a turntable :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Dan---)]

Noddy wrote:

>>
>>God help us all now.
>
>
> Hey, they ride tredlies on public roads of their own free will.

Yeah I know and I let them. ;-)

>
> They've just *gotta* have a sense of humour :)

Oh.
:-)


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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Spear and Magic Helmet" <speed_saves@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130305686.433822.188350@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Resound wrote:
>> That was a response to the "sheeple" and "dumb ****s" remarks.
>> You'll find most of the people in aus.bicycle are distinctly NOT
>> media sheep.
>
> I'll try and reword it again. Only the media sheep should feel that I'm
> calling them a dumb **** -- because thats what I meant.
>
>> we're the subject of media beat-ups often enough
>
> Yeah I know. Keep in mind that I didn't know what group you were from
> -- only that I didn't recognise you from aus.cars.
>
>> I used to work as a grease-monkey in a Mitsubishi dealership
>
> I can't speak from as much experience as you cos I only speak from
> previous ownership and people I know who own them. Granted none of them
> are current model things. And Im sure there are extreme examples of
> tyre prices in both camps but I used to get mud terrains for 175. Have
> a look at the prices of all the 17 inch low profile rubber bands that a
> lot of cars come standard with these days. Ouch :O
>
> And it never used to cost me/us much to keep our 4wds on the road (and
> off the road).
>
> Hey I dont have a 4wd cos I dont need or want one anymore. I dont know
> why youd want to drive something so big around the burbs if thats all
> you used it for. Thing is its hard to say who really does take it off
> road and how often. Or even needs to tow something really heavy.
>
> There probably are the "fake hero" types out there but I would guess
> that they reasonably few in number comparitively speaking which is why
> Im against the stereotype.
>
> Yknow I dont think we are really disagreeing with each other much here.
>

I don't think we are either, which is often what happens when you clear away
the ad hominem stuff and get to the core points. Mind you, some of what I
said wasn't directed only at you, but at some of the other members of
aus.cars who've been posting on this thread. When you get rebuttals such as
"you're lying" and "bullshit" you despair of getting past the level of "IS
TO" "IS NOT" "IS TO" "IS NOT" "IS TO" "IS NOT" as a debate.

4WDs are a sore point in aus.bicycle for a number of reasons that I'm not
going to go into here and which I've largely avoided as tangential in this
thread. And while I've indulged myself in a bit of verbal spray here, one
thing we've discussed is the fact that the whole adversarial thing serves
nobody in the long run. We're all road users, the issue is responsible
*co-operative* road use. The fact that you're posting in a group means that
you care more than average about how you use your vehicle, whether it's a
car, bike or 4WD. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who really
couldn't care less and they're the ones who wander from lane to lane without
checking, run over their kids, or in the case of cyclists run red lights and
frighten pedestrians.

One of the things I ran into while trawling Google for some of my replies
was the fact that only one quarter of 4WD owners surveyed bought one because
they were considering going offroad. I'll bet that most people posting here
who own a 4WD would be within that one quarter. Hence, they're not really
the people who cyclists are pointing the finger at. Mind you, I'd still be
tempted to suggest that cycling to work and leaving the 4WD at home until
the weekend would be a much better bet. Again, I have a list of very good
reasons to do so for anyone who's at all interested. Living 20-30km from
work is no excuse either...that's how far most of us commute :)

These things aren't mutually exclusive IF you're prepared to think about
them a bit.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f1912$3@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Dan---" <no1canspamme@spamless.com> wrote in message
> news:435f0d3e$0$8662$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> **** just noticed this was x-posted to aus.bicyle
>>
>> God help us all now.
>
> Hey, they ride tredlies on public roads of their own free will.
>
> They've just *gotta* have a sense of humour :)
>
Well you've seen how we dress, right?

[Ext User(Spear and Magic Helmet)]

Resound wrote:
> These things aren't mutually exclusive IF you're prepared to
> think about them a bit.

Very true. But as has been established in a previous response -- I'm a
dumb **** :)

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Resound wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote

>> So what ran over the other 30%? Motorcycles and bicycles seem
>> unlikely as they are diffcult to back under power and have good
>> visibility. Trucks maybe?

> Vans and other commercial vehicles? Just a guess.

If 30% of kid driveway fatalities are caused by vans and other commercial
vehicles that sounds like a much bigger problem then AWD's belonging to
owner of house.

Theo