death spurs new call for bullbar ban

[Noddy]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f5948c.64417015@203.50.2.233...

> No, lets go back to this,

If you must, but I don't know why you can't comprehend the fact that there's
more to the types of vehicles involved that determine the outcome of
collisions....

> How about an idiot in a Landcruiser doing 80 vs an idiot in a Falcon
> doing 80.

How about it indeed? What point exactly are you trying to make?

Your entire argument is flawed by the fact that you're excluding the *many*
variables involved in collisions for the sake of simple black and white
"this vehicle will do more damage than that" bullshit.

It might work fine in controlled environments like test labs, but out in the
real world it doesn't mean much.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f59501.64533750@203.50.2.233...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:37:19 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
>
> >"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:41f447d0.494218@203.50.2.233...
> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:30:44 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
> >> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> A Landcruiser with a roobar comes through a set of traffic lights @
> >> >> 60kph and t-bones a Falcon between the doors @60kph
> >> >>
> >> >> Both identical situations, only the vehicle has changed. Which
> >> >> accident is going ot be messier?
> >> >
> >> >Presuming we undertake whatever restrictions you suggest, substitute
> >Falcon
> >> >for Landcruiser, and Astra for Falcon and explain why identical
> >restrictions
> >> >should not be apply to Falcon owners.
> >>
> >> Extremely simple and i've essentially already explained it. A Falcon
> >> does not have a solid truck chassis, has crumple zones and importantly
> >> has far superior primary safety to a Landcrusier and doesn't restrict
> >> vision to other road users.
> >
> >Nup they still are ussing unnecessary roadspace and carrying dangerous
extra
> >weight around and are able to accellerate way more than necessary too.
>
> >Trucks have full chassis if they were monocouque they'd be safe?
>
> You mean unitary construction don't you? If the bug muthas moved to
> this kind of construction, then yes they would pose less of a threat
> to other vehicles in an accident.
> You still havn't taken in to account primary safety though.
>
> >You obviously haven't looked under most 4x4's, separate chassis are on
the
> >decline and only left on serious offroad 4x4's that are very likely to be
> >used for their purpose.
>
> Cruisers, Patrols, Prado, LandRover, Explorer, Prado, Pajero off the
> top of my head use a ladder type chassis. These represent the bulk of
> SUV's on the road currently. But I agree, its slowly changing with the
> likes of Territory, Adventra, Kluger and the toy stuff.

Other than the Exploder and both Prado's they are all medium-heavy duty
4x4's and broght by people who need to tow big, want a reliable tourer or
want to play serious offroad.
Toy stuff are for the picnic brigade, and eating into serious 4x4 sales, so
you should be happy with the increase in safety overall.

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f59c6e.66435156@203.50.2.233...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:40:33 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
>
> >"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:41f448b0.717703@203.50.2.233...
> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:26:43 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
> >> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> A Falcon outhandles the likes of Landcrusiers by a huge margin,
> >> >> outbrakes them and has crumple zones that are designed to reduce the
> >> >> impact to all occupants involved in a crash.
> >> >
> >> >Well despite their "superior" handling there seem to be a lot of them
> >> >hitting power poles at 2am, drifting across lanes in round abouts and
not
> >> >being able to keep between 2 lines in a parking space.
> >>
> >> Your getting like Noddy and drifting, this is a driver problem.
> >
> >Maybe, but it's the real problem so fix it before you start interfering
with
> >other peoples interests and livelyhood.
>
> Err, it doesn't matter what vehicle the driver is driving, but you
> fail to see that in your blind defence of these vehicles.

If you spent half as much effort into removing idiot drivers as you do
4x4's, the problem would be solved by now.

> >> >> >Ban all BA's, as they're fucking bloated shit-heaps that pose a
> >serious
> >> >> >threat to anyone in a small car.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you like. But they pose a far less threat than a bullbar equipped
> >> >> Landcruiser.
> >> >
> >> >Except for the fact you're more likely to be hit by a Falcon.
> >>
> >> True at the moment. But again your drifting, its not down to the
> >> vehicle,
> >
> >No, I'm stating the real problem you are too one-eyed to see.
>
> You are diverting from the actual problem and judging by your
> comments, are blisfully unaware of it or choose (as a person with a
> vested interestd in these vehicles) to turn a blind eye.

The actual problem is the idiot drivers.

> I on the otherhand don't actually have a problem with offroad type
> vehicles as long as they are used for there intended purpose every now
> and again and the driver is aware of its limitations (which btw is
> where I would put you) and infact wouldn't mind an SUV myself so I
> could go offroading.

You can't go offroading properly in a SUV and besides there aren't any in
Australia.
It would be interesting to see if you did own a serious 4x4 that you played
hard with, what your reaction would be then to someone who said "nice SUV"

> > its down to the sheer number of Falcons vs Landcruisers on
> >> the road and as the SUV segment grows, so does the danger.
> >
> >Rack off Yankee wannabe.
>
> ROFL, glad that got to you :)

You like USA so much move there, just don't encourage the making of
Australia into a state of America.

[Kieron]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:01:24 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4163@_nospam_dodo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:41f5948c.64417015@203.50.2.233...
>
>> No, lets go back to this,
>
>If you must, but I don't know why you can't comprehend the fact that there's
>more to the types of vehicles involved that determine the outcome of
>collisions....
>
>> How about an idiot in a Landcruiser doing 80 vs an idiot in a Falcon
>> doing 80.
>
>How about it indeed? What point exactly are you trying to make?

I'm asking you two to answer the question, neither of you are willing
too.
The point is, a heavier, stifer vehicle is more likely to cause more
damage to a lighter vehicle. Also, these type of vehices, and we are
talking upright 4wd's here generally have inferior primary safety to
most sedan type cars.

>Your entire argument is flawed by the fact that you're excluding the *many*
>variables involved in collisions for the sake of simple black and white
>"this vehicle will do more damage than that" bullshit.
>
>It might work fine in controlled environments like test labs, but out in the
>real world it doesn't mean much.

Of course it fucking does, seriously I don't know why you can't
comprehend this.

Do you know even a little about physics? regardless of the variables
which obviously exist, accidents are subject to the laws of physics.

But lets look at it from your far fetched argument for a second,
taking it to extremes -

A Getz hits a Bullbar equipped prime mover head on, who is more likely
to survive?

[Kieron]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:06:58 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
<sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:


>> >You obviously haven't looked under most 4x4's, separate chassis are on
>the
>> >decline and only left on serious offroad 4x4's that are very likely to be
>> >used for their purpose.
>>
>> Cruisers, Patrols, Prado, LandRover, Explorer, Prado, Pajero off the
>> top of my head use a ladder type chassis. These represent the bulk of
>> SUV's on the road currently. But I agree, its slowly changing with the
>> likes of Territory, Adventra, Kluger and the toy stuff.
>
>Other than the Exploder and both Prado's they are all medium-heavy duty
>4x4's and broght by people who need to tow big, want a reliable tourer or
>want to play serious offroad.

But this is the crux of the problem, we all know that these types of
vehicles arn't exclusively purchase by people who tow big stuff or do
seriious offroad work. As for reliable tourer, the FalCom, MagAvalon
fits the bill quite wel :)

>Toy stuff are for the picnic brigade, and eating into serious 4x4 sales, so
>you should be happy with the increase in safety overall.

I'd say those poeple buying these picnic baskets arn't downsizing from
the big stuff, but moving from a typical sedan so therfore safety is
decreasing.

[Kieron]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:28:37 +1100, OzOne <> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:19:09 GMT, kieronm302@hotmail.com (Kieron)
>scribbled thusly:
>
>>On 24 Jan 2005 13:35:11 -0800, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> Rack off Yankee wannabe.
>>>
>>>I find it strange that Utility Vehicles (utes) are not included under
>>>the "Sports Utility Vehicle" banner. Especially the *Sporty *Utility
>>>*Vehicles like SS Utes and XR8 Utes...
>>
>>
>>These kind of vehicles are called pickups in the USA where the term
>>SUV originated. Utility is an Aussie term :)
>
>Bwaaaahahahhahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaaaaaa!

Why do you bother Oz? if you disagree say why.

[Diesel Damo]

Kieron wrote:

> picnic baskets

LOL =)

[Kieron]

On 24 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0800, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>> These kind of vehicles are called pickups in the USA
>
>Isn't a pickup something that has the "ute bit at the back" separate
>from the body of the rest of the vehicle?

The Ranchero is similar to a Falcon ute, check this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranchero

There is also a link to the definition of pickup.

Oh, and there is an interesting article on the term SUV at -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_utility_vehicle

Noddy might not want to read this as it has info that backs my
argument :)

Oh and another one for you Nod -

http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3804.pdf

This one contains stats on SUV vs car accidents.

>Maloo utes aren't like that if I recall correctly, nor is the XR8 ute
>that a friend of mine has. It's all smooth styling and very much a
>"single piece" look as far as body work goes.

Since the AU, all Falcon utes could be described as having a pickup
type body, but nobody does as the term utility describes how they are
actually perceived in the market, just like the term SUV really :)

[Kieron]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:58:08 GMT, "Noddy" <dg4163@_nospam_dodo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:41f59c6e.66435156@203.50.2.233...
>
>> Err, it doesn't matter what vehicle the driver is driving, but you
>> fail to see that in your blind defence of these vehicles.
>
>Funny, but I thought I was saying this last week :)

I was waiting for you to pounce on that :) Difference is, act the
idiot in a Falcon or act the idiot in the Landcrusier and your more
likely to get yourself into troub;e in the Crusier and cause more
damage.

[Kieron]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:14:53 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
<sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:

>"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:41f59c6e.66435156@203.50.2.233...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:40:33 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
>> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:41f448b0.717703@203.50.2.233...
>> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:26:43 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"
>> >> <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> A Falcon outhandles the likes of Landcrusiers by a huge margin,
>> >> >> outbrakes them and has crumple zones that are designed to reduce the
>> >> >> impact to all occupants involved in a crash.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well despite their "superior" handling there seem to be a lot of them
>> >> >hitting power poles at 2am, drifting across lanes in round abouts and
>not
>> >> >being able to keep between 2 lines in a parking space.
>> >>
>> >> Your getting like Noddy and drifting, this is a driver problem.
>> >
>> >Maybe, but it's the real problem so fix it before you start interfering
>with
>> >other peoples interests and livelyhood.
>>
>> Err, it doesn't matter what vehicle the driver is driving, but you
>> fail to see that in your blind defence of these vehicles.
>
>If you spent half as much effort into removing idiot drivers as you do
>4x4's, the problem would be solved by now.

Unfortunately, your not going to remove idiot drivers, simple as that.

>> >> >> >Ban all BA's, as they're fucking bloated shit-heaps that pose a
>> >serious
>> >> >> >threat to anyone in a small car.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you like. But they pose a far less threat than a bullbar equipped
>> >> >> Landcruiser.
>> >> >
>> >> >Except for the fact you're more likely to be hit by a Falcon.
>> >>
>> >> True at the moment. But again your drifting, its not down to the
>> >> vehicle,
>> >
>> >No, I'm stating the real problem you are too one-eyed to see.
>>
>> You are diverting from the actual problem and judging by your
>> comments, are blisfully unaware of it or choose (as a person with a
>> vested interestd in these vehicles) to turn a blind eye.
>
>The actual problem is the idiot drivers.

Sure there are idiot drivers, but they don't cause all the accidents,
no driver is perfect.

>> I on the otherhand don't actually have a problem with offroad type
>> vehicles as long as they are used for there intended purpose every now
>> and again and the driver is aware of its limitations (which btw is
>> where I would put you) and infact wouldn't mind an SUV myself so I
>> could go offroading.
>
>You can't go offroading properly in a SUV and besides there aren't any in
>Australia.

I'd tend to agree up to a point. But a Cherokee is a decent offroader
and is most definately classed as an SUV

>It would be interesting to see if you did own a serious 4x4 that you played
>hard with, what your reaction would be then to someone who said "nice SUV"

I wouldn't give a flying fuck, same as my mum who happens to own a
Landcruiser or my mate who ran a 4wd training center and organises
offroad trecks or my FIL who owns a Toyota Surf and an old Land Rover.

>> > its down to the sheer number of Falcons vs Landcruisers on
>> >> the road and as the SUV segment grows, so does the danger.
>> >
>> >Rack off Yankee wannabe.
>>
>> ROFL, glad that got to you :)
>
>You like USA so much move there, just don't encourage the making of
>Australia into a state of America.

Hehe, you've got it wrong. Its the younguns who are making Australia
more than ever like USA and ironically, its also the people who are
buying these types of vehicles who are turning us into a mini USA, not
me, i'm triyng to keep us all in good old Aussie Falcons :)

[Diesel Damo]

> Oh, and there is an interesting article on the term SUV at -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_utility_vehicle

"A sport utility vehicle (SUV) or off-roader is a vehicle that combines
the load-hauling and passenger-carrying capacity of a large station
wagon or minivan with features designed for off-road driving. In more
recent years, the term has also grown to encompass vehicles with
similar size and style that are marketed as sport utility vehicles, but
which do not actually incorporate substantial off-road features"

They reckon a Subaru Forrester is an SUV? So it's a similar size to a
Landbruiser? A Forrester is smaller than a Falcon (ute or station
wagon). So is a WRX station wagon an SUV too? It doesn't make sense -
which is to be expected when you try to make a single term cover such a
broad range of vehicles.

My honest opinion is that the term "SUV" is now so broad (according to
that article) that it has no real meaning at all. You might as well
make up any old term and have an arbitrary *list* of cars that come
under that banner, rather than having a logical principle that can be
applied to any vehicle to determine if it's in that group or not.
My 2c.

[OzOne]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:29:15 GMT, kieronm302@hotmail.com (Kieron)
scribbled thusly:

>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:28:37 +1100, OzOne <> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:19:09 GMT, kieronm302@hotmail.com (Kieron)
>>scribbled thusly:
>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2005 13:35:11 -0800, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rack off Yankee wannabe.
>>>>
>>>>I find it strange that Utility Vehicles (utes) are not included under
>>>>the "Sports Utility Vehicle" banner. Especially the *Sporty *Utility
>>>>*Vehicles like SS Utes and XR8 Utes...
>>>
>>>
>>>These kind of vehicles are called pickups in the USA where the term
>>>SUV originated. Utility is an Aussie term :)
>>
>>Bwaaaahahahhahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaaaaaa!
>
>Why do you bother Oz? if you disagree say why.

OK, lets see now SUV....do you think that the 'utility' therein has
anything to do with our Ute, or much more to do with their use of
utility as in utility knife.

Sure, the word is the same, has the same base use but in common use,
ours is a sedan with an open back, theirs is a vehicle for something
entirely different
u·til·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "utility" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(y-tl-t)
n. pl. u·til·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being useful; usefulness: “I have
always doubted the utility of these conferences on disarmament”
(Winston S. Churchill).
2. A useful article or device.
3.
1. A public utility.
2. A commodity or service, such as electricity, water, or
public transportation, that is provided by a public utility.
4. Computer Science. A utility program.


adj.

1. Used, serving, or working in several capacities as needed,
especially:
1. Prepared to play any of the smaller theatrical roles on
short notice: a utility cast member.
2. Capable of playing as a substitute in any of several
positions: a utility infielder.
2. Designed for various often heavy-duty practical uses: a utility
knife; a utility vehicle.
3. Raised or kept for the production of a farm product rather than
for show or as pets: utility livestock.
4. Of the lowest U.S. Government grade: utility beef.

As a matter of fact, it appears that you need to go to an Australian
English dictionary to find a definition of a ute because in American
dictionaries, it's an Indian and his language.



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

[feral]

Diesel Damo wrote:

> My honest opinion is that the term "SUV" is now so broad (according to
> that article) that it has no real meaning at all. You might as well
> make up any old term and have an arbitrary *list* of cars that come
> under that banner, rather than having a logical principle that can be
> applied to any vehicle to determine if it's in that group or not.
> My 2c.
>
The MY02 puts it in the SSUV class, but the "c" has got me
stumped. ;-)



--

Take Care
Feral

[Diesel Damo]

> The MY02 puts it in the SSUV class, but
> the "c" has got me stumped. ;-)

c = light speed ;-)

[feral]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>>The MY02 puts it in the SSUV class, but
>>the "c" has got me stumped. ;-)
>
>
> c = light speed ;-)
>
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

--

Take Care
Feral

[Noddy]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f847e3.3559421@203.50.2.233...

> I'm asking you two to answer the question, neither of you are willing
> too.

Because your question is fucking irrelevant Kieron, as it's a situation that
would be extremely remote at *best*.

You're looking for an answer to a bullshit question that assumes all else
would be equal, when the chances of that actually happening in the real
world are only *slightly* better than mine of doing a burnout in the space
shuttle. You happily fail to acknowledge the fact that there are *many*
variables that determine the outcome of a collision between vehicle X and Y,
and seem interested only in black and white physics data which can play a
minor or major role in accident damage depending on the circumstances.

> The point is, a heavier, stifer vehicle is more likely to cause more
> damage to a lighter vehicle. Also, these type of vehices, and we are
> talking upright 4wd's here generally have inferior primary safety to
> most sedan type cars.

What the fuck is this "primary safety" bullshit you've invented? :)

Until I understand what the fuck this new term of yours actually means, I
can't comment on it.

> Of course it fucking does, seriously I don't know why you can't
> comprehend this.

18 months as a tow truck driver seeing some of the most horendous accidents
you can imagine has taught me that physics doesn't always work the way you
expect it to.

Your experience would be?

> Do you know even a little about physics? regardless of the variables
> which obviously exist, accidents are subject to the laws of physics.

See above.

> But lets look at it from your far fetched argument for a second,
> taking it to extremes -
>
> A Getz hits a Bullbar equipped prime mover head on, who is more likely
> to survive?

That depends.

Is the truck driver wearing a seatbelt? :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f8509d.5793593@203.50.2.233...

> But this is the crux of the problem, we all know that these types of
> vehicles arn't exclusively purchase by people who tow big stuff or do
> seriious offroad work.

Who gives a shit what people buy them for?

> As for reliable tourer, the FalCom, MagAvalon fits the bill quite wel :)

Falcons do sometimes :)

> I'd say those poeple buying these picnic baskets arn't downsizing from
> the big stuff, but moving from a typical sedan so therfore safety is
> decreasing.

Hmm, it would seem your logic changes to suit your argument.

A mid size soft roader like an Xfail weighes what, 1500kg? That's a quarter
tonne lighter than a garden variety "common as muck" Falcon.

Explain to me again how physics is so important, and the heavier vehicle
always does more damage... :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Neil Gerace]

"Noddy" <dg4163@_nospam_dod.com.au> wrote in message
news:41f8856f$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> What the fuck is this "primary safety" bullshit you've invented? :)
>
> Until I understand what the fuck this new term of yours actually means, I
> can't comment on it.

Primary safety = being able to avoid a crash. It's not new. It includes
things like good brakes, suspension and tyres. Things which most 4WDs don't
have, as witnessed by the fact that they generally don't handle as well as
ordinary cars.

[Noddy]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f85212.6166046@203.50.2.233...

> Noddy might not want to read this as it has info that backs my
> argument :)

Fuck you can be thick at times :)

What part of that, if any, related to Australia?

We have our *own* language here, and don't need wannabee yanks using stupid
non descriptive terms like "SUV". We call a tap a tap, not a faucet, a nappy
instead of a daiper, a ute not a pickup, and so on.

I couldn't give a flying fuck how many websites you point to that define the
term, or how it "proves" you correct. SUV is certainly *not* a common
industry term in this country, nor is it one that's popular with the
community at large.

If you honestly think it is, then you probably think we have black & white
police cars too.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

"Kieron" <kieronm302@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f85583.7046906@203.50.2.233...

> I was waiting for you to pounce on that :) Difference is, act the
> idiot in a Falcon or act the idiot in the Landcrusier and your more
> likely to get yourself into troub;e in the Crusier and cause more
> damage.

Yet again, I'll wait for you to cite something that proves this to be
correct.

Don't worry though, I'm not holding my breath....

--
Regards,
Noddy.