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

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Noddy wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> 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....

You get that when you build on a 20,000 sq metre block, with a 25 metre
minimum set-back. The house is 75 metres from the front fence. I use ten
litres to mow the front yard.

> Get a turntable :)

In the garage so I don't have to reverse anywhere?

I no longer have kids at home so only have to worry about running over the
chooks. Even they are smart enough to get out of the way.

Theo

[Ext User(Theo Bekkers)]

Noddy wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> They're too quick for you, eh?

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

Relax a little. :-)

Theo

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f1913@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "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 :)
>

Those are the fun bits. You forgot headwinds, punctures, swooping magpies
and dust in your eyes. :)

>> 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.
>

Ok I lost sight of the "banning vehicles" concept because I never really
advocated it myself to start with. I was approaching it more from an
"oversized vehicles are a bloody menace and this is one reason why" point of
view. I hopped into this particular thread because it's much more rewarding
and productive to discuss this with people who sit on the other side of the
fence. When this sort of thread appears on aus.bicycle we preach to the
converted, pat each other on the back and continue as we were. It's all very
cathartic but doesn't really achieve much.

More specific to what you were saying, I don't recall using the term
"sedan". If I did, it wasn't meant to be a focal term. My point was that in
the context of the study in question, the Commodore was an aberration with
regards to other passenger cars and rearward visibility and therefore to
point at it and say "Look...it's a car and it's MUCH worse than plenty of
4WDs!" is not particularly relevant. Someone (Birdman, I think) took an
example which happens to perform exceptionally badly in this test and then
held it up as being generally representitive of the type. It's clearly not
and therefore, in this instance and for the purposes of this discussion and
more specifically the point being made at the time it's an aberration and
so, by definition, *not normal*.

*inhales*

By most other criteria it's a pretty normal car, if something of an
unnecessarily fat bastard. We're the only western country in the world other
than the US which thinks that a 1500kg+ car is "normal". It's bloody well
not.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f22dc$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> 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
>

Wouldn't suprise me. Tradies and couriers in vans are waaaay up near the top
of the "watch like a bloody hawk" list.

[Ext User(Birdman)]

>Perhaps you shouldn't hang out in those sorts of areas.
Sorry if driving on the road is an issue, or shopping centers, or

> You might meet some educated women elsewhere. My experience with women drivers is that they are about on par with men,
LMAO..

> The makeup one is the only one I've seen. Also I'd say I see more women texting while driving.
The defence rests.

> 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.

The defence rests.

[Ext User(Tamyka Bell)]

Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
<snip>
> Yknow I dont think we are really disagreeing with each other much here.

Sounds like some educated people having a sensible discussion... wtf is
that doing on usenet?

Tam

[Ext User(Kim Hawtin)]

Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
> 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.

personnaly? ever been in a collision?

> 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.

costs a shit load more than my bike ;) $500 total maintenance for 12
months for two bikes.

> 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.

stats are likely to be interpreted in *intersting ways*. 'nuf said.

have you been cycling and hit by a large 4WD and left for dead on the
side of the road? hmmmm .. ?

*all* of the collisisons i have had in the last twelve months, i have
been hit from behind or been hit while i was stationary at the lights
or been hit while riding in a bike lane.

of those 11 times, 10 were from large 4WDs. all my cycling is commuting
from 6am-11am or 5pm-8pm weekdays. about 80% of my journey is in a bike
lane or a dedicated bike path. i follow the same road rules. indicate,
stop at lights and stop signs, the lot. even on my fixie. especially on
the fixie.

> 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.

vehicular defects and design issues aside, the driver is responsible for
their actions. they can not hide from that. blaming the vehlice is their
own fault. they baught it, they're driving it. grow a backbone!

> 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.

Prados count for 7 of the road abusers that that have hit me.
then a couple of pajeros, a landcruiser and a falcon.
interesting breakdown don't you think?

'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious offroading
myself ;)
might have to find a Manx or summat.
maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...

regards,

Kim

[Ext User(Noons)]

Resound wrote:

>
> So exactly how would you suggest bulk goods are transported?

In vehicles not driven by drug addicts.


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

No. The claims are on "4WD"s, no specifics. And you
know it perfectly well.


> It's still demonstrates a mentality that says "screw you, I'm ok".

So what? Oh, you are a charity promoter now? What,
you wanna tell me this is not what this society has turned to?
Yeah. Right...


> Whether
> it's illegal or not doesn't mean that it's not reprehensible.

Which makes it something to bark about and make illegal,
isn't it? In character...


> As opposed to lining the pockets of banks and oil companies?

So does ANYONE buying ANY car. Get a clue!


> 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.

YES! And it's not car rental companies. It's the tourist
rental mob who is the one behind all this crap.


> There's that black and white thinking again.

It's called logic. Something you should try.
Instead of emotional crap.


> Actually, most studies of this
> nature are going to wind up talking about probabilities.

Which completely shows them for what they are: hoaxes
masquerading as "science" based claims.

> 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.

No it's not. Get real. ANY vehicle with a mass greater
than 5 times that of a pedestrian WILL seriously maim
that pedestrian at any speed. It's got absolutely NOTHING
to do with how many wheels drive that vehicle. And
the rest of your "studies" are total BULLSHIT.


> 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.

Have you tried to register/insure a 4WD for a change? Try reality,
it's a lot better than your emotional crap. And the tired
old tariff bullshit: you pay the tariff once, you pay rego/insurance
EVERY year.

[Ext User(Noons)]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> 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.

Wanna bet we will never see it complained about
by the "do-gooders"? Yet it is one of the worse
scores in rear visibility.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f2452$1@news.bekkers.com.au...

> You get that when you build on a 20,000 sq metre block, with a 25 metre
> minimum set-back. The house is 75 metres from the front fence. I use ten
> litres to mow the front yard.

I hope it's a ride on.

I'd also be having a mini bike to get the mail :)

> In the garage so I don't have to reverse anywhere?

Yeah. Sounds like you've got the room.

> I no longer have kids at home so only have to worry about running over the
> chooks. Even they are smart enough to get out of the way.

Unlike cats that enjoy sleeping on a warm engine :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f24c7@news.bekkers.com.au...

> Relax a little. :-)

I was :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435f1dea$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> Well you've seen how we dress, right?

Yeah, I have, and I've always found it strange.

I mean, is there some unwritten law somewhere that states week-end bike
riders *must* get dressed up like a packet of licorice allsorts, or is it
just because they're "special"? :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435f2397$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> Ok I lost sight of the "banning vehicles" concept because I never really
> advocated it myself to start with. I was approaching it more from an
> "oversized vehicles are a bloody menace and this is one reason why" point
> of view. I hopped into this particular thread because it's much more
> rewarding and productive to discuss this with people who sit on the other
> side of the fence. When this sort of thread appears on aus.bicycle we
> preach to the converted, pat each other on the back and continue as we
> were. It's all very cathartic but doesn't really achieve much.

That sums up newsgroups pretty well :)

> More specific to what you were saying, I don't recall using the term
> "sedan". If I did, it wasn't meant to be a focal term.

It wasn't directed at you personally, but the anti-4wd club in general.

"Sedan" is an often quoted alternative to a 4wd, yet it's about as equally
descriptive as "4wd" in terms of describing particular vehicles.

> My point was that in the context of the study in question, the Commodore
> was an aberration with regards to other passenger cars and rearward
> visibility and therefore to point at it and say "Look...it's a car and
> it's MUCH worse than plenty of 4WDs!" is not particularly relevant.
> Someone (Birdman, I think) took an example which happens to perform
> exceptionally badly in this test and then held it up as being generally
> representitive of the type. It's clearly not and therefore, in this
> instance and for the purposes of this discussion and more specifically the
> point being made at the time it's an aberration and so, by definition,
> *not normal*.

I certainly agree that it's an exception in the main, however it *does* show
that "sedans" aren't the be all and end all in this regard.

I also mentioned in another post that I don't find the Falcon to be any
better, and would also suggest that rear visibility is as much a driver
dependant thing as the vehicle itself.

> *inhales*
>
> By most other criteria it's a pretty normal car, if something of an
> unnecessarily fat bastard. We're the only western country in the world
> other than the US which thinks that a 1500kg+ car is "normal". It's bloody
> well not.

Lol :)

I agree entirely.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(dave)]

Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
> 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. :)
>

truesy We dont notice the good ones. Its just the way it is

But on this subject we were down at chapel st last night. Watched Ms
Rav4.. do a u turn.. screw it up.. nearly back into a tram. Then drive
right over the footpath 3 wheels onto it.. before parking. I was a tad
slow remembering I had a camera. I would have taken the pic and posted
it here.

THe thought of that person with a licence has to worry anyone surely.
On the other hand it was off road I suppose. And as far off road as
that particular Rav4 is ever likely to get.

Dave

[Ext User(dave)]

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 gave up Noddy when I was quite young. Very not PC wasnt he :)

>

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f3557$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:435f1dea$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Well you've seen how we dress, right?
>
> Yeah, I have, and I've always found it strange.
>
> I mean, is there some unwritten law somewhere that states week-end bike
> riders *must* get dressed up like a packet of licorice allsorts, or is it
> just because they're "special"? :)
>
It's a combination of comfort (chafing is BAD, especially over a period of
hours) and being as visible as possible. Trust me, I don't wear lycra to
look good. I'm resisting the wrap around sunnies, but I've blinked just in
time to have insects etc bounce off my eyelids an awful lot, so it'll
probably happen. Black lycra knicks are sort of a leftover from when leather
saddles used to be all that was available and would stain anything that was
any other colour. It also helps avoid a degree of transparency with wear,
which nobody wants.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"dave" <dave@jeack.notmorespam.com.au> wrote in message
news:435f3aea$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..

> I gave up Noddy when I was quite young. Very not PC wasnt he :)

Neither am I :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1130312037.439960.108990@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Resound wrote:
>
>>
>> So exactly how would you suggest bulk goods are transported?
>
> In vehicles not driven by drug addicts.
>

And those vehicle would be...?

>> Specious. "Landcruiser" is a generic term in that context and you know
>> it.
>> Substitute any large 4WD.
>
> No. The claims are on "4WD"s, no specifics. And you
> know it perfectly well.
>

That was rather my point. Ok, the word "Landcruiser" should not have been
used in that context as the intent was generic.

>
>> It's still demonstrates a mentality that says "screw you, I'm ok".
>
> So what? Oh, you are a charity promoter now? What,
> you wanna tell me this is not what this society has turned to?
> Yeah. Right...
>

No, I'm someone who actually recognises the fact that we all live in a
community, not a series of opportunities for personal gain with no
responsibilities to anyone else. To suggest that you shouldn't be held
accountable for your choices and actions would be laughable if it wasn't
disturbing. You wouldn't (I hope) wander through a crowd holding your elbows
up at face height and suggest that anyone who happens to walk into your
elbows should have watched where they were going. No, you keep your hands by
your sides and look around yourself like everyone else. The sane basic
obligations apply on the road.

>
>> Whether
>> it's illegal or not doesn't mean that it's not reprehensible.
>
> Which makes it something to bark about and make illegal,
> isn't it? In character...
>
>
>> As opposed to lining the pockets of banks and oil companies?
>
> So does ANYONE buying ANY car. Get a clue!
>

Yeah, I know that. Let's see if I can't make it a little more clear...why
line ANYONE'S pockets?

>
>> 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.
>
> YES! And it's not car rental companies. It's the tourist
> rental mob who is the one behind all this crap.
>

So yes, you would want to actively deny car rental companies business (and
put yourself out of pocket to do so) and it's not them it's the the "tourist
rental mob" (ass opposed to car rental companies) who are behind some crap
or another. I'll remember not to rent any tourists in the future. Now, about
car rental. Through Thrifty (I didn't look very hard...first rental company
I looked at) you can get a large 4WD (Pajero in this instance although the
fleet listing includes Landcruisers and others) for $95/day. On the savings
between a small car and a large 4WD in fuel alone over the year, you can
rent a large 4WD for close to a fortnight. That doesn't take into account
the savings on maintenance, that exhorbitant registration fee you were
moaning about before and all the other dreadful burdens offroad vehiocle
owners apparently have to bear.

>
>> There's that black and white thinking again.
>
> It's called logic. Something you should try.
> Instead of emotional crap.
>

Hey, I'm not the one talking about "tourist rental mob" conspiracy theories
and onslaughts from drug addicts taking over the road transport system.

>
>> Actually, most studies of this
>> nature are going to wind up talking about probabilities.
>
> Which completely shows them for what they are: hoaxes
> masquerading as "science" based claims.
>
>> 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.
>
> No it's not. Get real. ANY vehicle with a mass greater
> than 5 times that of a pedestrian WILL seriously maim
> that pedestrian at any speed. It's got absolutely NOTHING
> to do with how many wheels drive that vehicle. And
> the rest of your "studies" are total BULLSHIT.
>

Ooh, hide in denial, it's safe and warm. Double the mass of the vehicle,
double its stopping distance, how's that for a hard unemotional fact? Double
the mass, double the kinetic energy delivered at impact, even assuming the
same impact speed, there's another. If you think probabilities are all crap,
take a quick drive up the wrong side of the freeway...you won't DEFINITELY
hit anything, it's only a probability increase that you will, so you you'll
be perfectly safe right?

Right?

>
>> 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.
>
> Have you tried to register/insure a 4WD for a change? Try reality,
> it's a lot better than your emotional crap. And the tired
> old tariff bullshit: you pay the tariff once, you pay rego/insurance
> EVERY year.
>

Insurance companies (including the TAC) don't make actuarial tables up out
of thin air, they base them on claims made against them. If your vehicles
type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the insurance
company. That's another one of your unemotional facts of life. Says
something, doesn't it? Whether you think that's another conspiracy or not,
see my previous point about dodging those nasty unfair burdens of 4WD
ownership.

[Ext User(dave)]

>
>
> Ooh, hide in denial, it's safe and warm. Double the mass of the vehicle,
> double its stopping distance, how's that for a hard unemotional fact? Double
> the mass, double the kinetic energy delivered at impact, even assuming the
> same impact speed,


I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
energy?

Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits too.


>
> Insurance companies (including the TAC) don't make actuarial tables up out
> of thin air, they base them on claims made against them. If your vehicles
> type costs more to insure, it's because it's a greater risk to the insurance
> company. That's another one of your unemotional facts of life. Says
> something, doesn't it? Whether you think that's another conspiracy or not,
> see my previous point about dodging those nasty unfair burdens of 4WD
> ownership.
>
>

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435f154c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "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?

Tyres last longer because they are bigger, any cars tyre makers guaranteeing
50,000km?
I only buy probably one set every 4 years, I've ripped more sidewalls out
than got them to go bald.
Maintenance is a whip around underneath with a grease gun, change oil. Most
cars don't even have grease nipples, just replace uni's & bearings every few
years instead, grease them and you get 10-20 years out of them. Maintenance
on cars is only cheaper because they don't really do any maintenance, they
just swap the oil, spray the door hinges with WD40 and hand you a bill for
$100.
Solid axle front ends don't need wheel alignments every 12 months, I've
never had mine done in 4 years and it was fine until I bent the housing
doing some serious rock hopping a few months ago.

>> 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.

Why don't SS Commodore drivers or people with turbo's just rent one as
needed?
Why don't 4 door car drivers drive 2 door bubble cars then rent a 4 door
when needed?

I go offroad at around once a month, compete in offroad comps, I live 5kms
from work, sometimes I ride my bike if work is going easy, but usually the
idea of riding home in the dark & possibly rain after 12 hour shift doesn't
appeal to me. I drive my dented, faded 1989 Patrol 4.2 petrol gas guzzler,
which still only uses 90 litres in a month, so I am obviously driving it for
the image in your books, so should buy a $10k Falcodore as well to drive to
work in.

Where can I rent a dual cab Patrol with fridge, watertank, diff locks,
inverter, compressor, big tyres & lift kit, plus a policy that they pay for
damage caused offroad? And will they allow me to leave my tools & camping
gear sitting in it between trips?

You're worse than a mate who thought I could save money by spending $3k on a
diesel conversion.