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

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

Brash wrote:
> "Brash" <trooper1962@hotmail.SPAM> wrote in message
> news:435b5755$0$10998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>The car accident that left the daughter of former Wallaby skipper Phil
>>Kearns with life-threatening injuries has reignited demands for upgraded
>>safety on four-wheel drives.
>
>
> How about upgraded situational awareness for ALL drivers?

How about tyargetting the biggest killers first.

How about dealing with faulty owners of dangerous
machinery that is involved
in a disproportionate number of child fatalities...

"I bought a 4WD for my families safety" - Pigs Arse

>
>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
>>Saturday.
>
>
> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The machines
> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>

A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
two year old is standing behind it.

For a 4WD its over 15 metres.

4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.

I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.


>>"People buy them (4WDs) thinking they're safe, but they simply are not,"
>>Mr Scruby said.

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...5936,15755676%
255E1702,00.html

4WD owners 'compensating'
By David Crawshaw
28jun05

FOUR-wheel drive owners will often tell you they chose their vehicles for
safety reasons.

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.

"There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.

"The majority of drivers see (4WD owners) as aggressive and arrogant –
it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
sit above everyone else."

Mr Scruby today called for the removal of tariff reductions for 4WDs as a
study showed what many already suspected – that 4WDs are the most
dangerous cars on the road.

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

Mr Scruby, who drives a Subaru Outback, said it was hard to tell to what
degree the people driving 4WDs were responsible for the high injury
rates, and how much was due to the physical nature of 4WDs.

It was not really possible to improve safety for the occupants of one
vehicle in a crash without compromising safety for the occupants of the
other, he said.

Mr Scruby called on the Federal Government to scrap tariff reductions on
4WD vehicles, and to apply lower tariffs to safer vehicles.

People who genuinely needed 4WDs, such as those in remote areas, could be
exempted from increased tariffs, he said.

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

"I don't think people in Mosman and Toorak should be getting these
vehicles at 5-per-cent tax when a Corolla is taxed at 10 per cent," Mr
Scruby said.

He also took aim at young drivers in regional areas who drove souped-up
utes often adorned with bullbars, aerials and stickers.

"In the bush every young driver wants to drive a Holden ute with a
bullbar," he said.

"It's a testosterone thing, it's all about 'mine is bigger than yours'."

NRMA vehicle policy expert Jack Haley said the high rate of injuries
caused by 4WDs was due to the type of vehicle involved, not the behaviour
of 4WD drivers.

The same tariffs should be applied to all cars, Mr Haley said.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
> Brash wrote:
>> "Brash" <trooper1962@hotmail.SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:435b5755$0$10998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>>>The car accident that left the daughter of former Wallaby skipper Phil
>>>Kearns with life-threatening injuries has reignited demands for upgraded
>>>safety on four-wheel drives.
>>
>>
>> How about upgraded situational awareness for ALL drivers?
>
> How about tyargetting the biggest killers first.
>
> How about dealing with faulty owners of dangerous
> machinery that is involved
> in a disproportionate number of child fatalities...
>
> "I bought a 4WD for my families safety" - Pigs Arse
>
>>
>>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
>>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
>>>Saturday.
>>
>>
>> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
>> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The
>> machines
>> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>>
>
> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
> two year old is standing behind it.
>
> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>
> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
>
> I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.

Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.





>
>
>>>"People buy them (4WDs) thinking they're safe, but they simply are not,"
>>>Mr Scruby said.
>
> http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...5936,15755676%
> 255E1702,00.html
>
> 4WD owners 'compensating'
> By David Crawshaw
> 28jun05
>
> FOUR-wheel drive owners will often tell you they chose their vehicles for
> safety reasons.
>
> 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.
>
> "There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
> because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.
>
> "The majority of drivers see (4WD owners) as aggressive and arrogant –
> it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
> sit above everyone else."
>
> Mr Scruby today called for the removal of tariff reductions for 4WDs as a
> study showed what many already suspected – that 4WDs are the most
> dangerous cars on the road.
>
> The Monash University study found 4WDs were far more likely than
> conventional vehicles to kill or maim other road users.
>
> Mr Scruby, who drives a Subaru Outback, said it was hard to tell to what
> degree the people driving 4WDs were responsible for the high injury
> rates, and how much was due to the physical nature of 4WDs.
>
> It was not really possible to improve safety for the occupants of one
> vehicle in a crash without compromising safety for the occupants of the
> other, he said.
>
> Mr Scruby called on the Federal Government to scrap tariff reductions on
> 4WD vehicles, and to apply lower tariffs to safer vehicles.
>
> People who genuinely needed 4WDs, such as those in remote areas, could be
> exempted from increased tariffs, he said.
>
> But elsewhere 4WDs should be "taxed off the road".
>
> "I don't think people in Mosman and Toorak should be getting these
> vehicles at 5-per-cent tax when a Corolla is taxed at 10 per cent," Mr
> Scruby said.
>
> He also took aim at young drivers in regional areas who drove souped-up
> utes often adorned with bullbars, aerials and stickers.
>
> "In the bush every young driver wants to drive a Holden ute with a
> bullbar," he said.
>
> "It's a testosterone thing, it's all about 'mine is bigger than yours'."
>
> NRMA vehicle policy expert Jack Haley said the high rate of injuries
> caused by 4WDs was due to the type of vehicle involved, not the behaviour
> of 4WD drivers.
>
> The same tariffs should be applied to all cars, Mr Haley said.
>

[Ext User(Knobdoodle)]

"Rainbow Warrior" <bobo@sbs.com.nz> wrote :
> Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.
>
Far-canal; who's running over the other 10%?
Trucks and busses? (Surely motorcycles aren't making a tangible
contribution!)
Knob

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-24, fasgnadh (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Brash wrote:
>>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
>>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
>>>Saturday.
>>
>> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
>> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The machines
>> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>
> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
> two year old is standing behind it.
>
> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.

Anecdotal only, I know, but the people of aus.bicycle heard last week
about my latest adventures.

Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).

This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.

'They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable
about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving
skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centred and self-absorbed,
with little interest in their neighbours or communities.'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...174396370.html

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulle...256E24001A1266

'Fred J Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says,
"Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I wonder how people view
me', and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to
get that."'
http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/01/1080544625539.html

"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded
that SUVs tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain,
self-centred and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their
marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."

I.e, exactly the people you *don't* want driving 4WDs, think that
they should be driving them. And it turns out it is no safer for them
to drive 4WDs, than a normal car, and is is *hugely* unsafe for the
rest of us, for them to be driving said.

--
TimC
MacOSX: Sort of like a pedigree persian cat. Very sleek, very
sexy, but a little too prone to going cross-eyed, biting you on
your thumb and then throwing up on your trousers. -- Jim in ASR

[Ext User(wilhelm_joseph_wolfendehn@yahoo.com)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
> > Brash wrote:
> >> "Brash" <trooper1962@hotmail.SPAM> wrote in message
> >> news:435b5755$0$10998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >>
> >>>The car accident that left the daughter of former Wallaby skipper Phil
> >>>Kearns with life-threatening injuries has reignited demands for upgraded
> >>>safety on four-wheel drives.
> >>
> >>
> >> How about upgraded situational awareness for ALL drivers?
> >
> > How about tyargetting the biggest killers first.
> >
> > How about dealing with faulty owners of dangerous
> > machinery that is involved
> > in a disproportionate number of child fatalities...
> >
> > "I bought a 4WD for my families safety" - Pigs Arse
> >
> >>
> >>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
> >>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
> >>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
> >>>Saturday.
> >>
> >>
> >> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
> >> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The
> >> machines
> >> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
> >>
> >
> > A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
> > two year old is standing behind it.
> >
> > For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
> >
> > 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
> > sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
> >
> > I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.
>
> Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.
>
Don't pay any attention to stupid little faggy arse. He wouldn't know a
real fourbie from his mother's arsehole. Little faggy arse has the
shits with anybody who has anything more than he does, which, since he
is a dole bludging uniwanker, is almost the total White Australian
population.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...

> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.

****ing bullshit :)

What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-9166-23232-

> This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.

Or that you're just a shit of a bike rider :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Kev)]

> Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
> other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
> and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
> fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).

what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
with cars?

in thye 20 years of driving trucks past bicycles on both city streets
and highways I have never hit one(although the dickhead who granbbed the
back of one truck for a free tow up hill was almost flung into a light
pole when I had to take evasive action to avoid a car that pulled out of
a driveway in front of me)


Kev

[Ext User(dave)]

Noddy wrote:
> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn-0.9.7.4-9166-23232-
>
>
>>This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.
>
>
> Or that you're just a shit of a bike rider :)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
Or really good at attracting the really stupid. :)

Sorry Tim.. couldnt resist

[Ext User(Michael C)]

"dave" <dave@jeack.notmorespam.com.au> wrote in message
news:435cd748$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
> Or really good at attracting the really stupid. :)
>
> Sorry Tim.. couldnt resist

He attracted noddy :-) Sorry noddy couldn't resist.

>

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-9166-23232-200510242059-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On 2005-10-24, fasgnadh (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Brash wrote:
>>>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical
>>>>but
>>>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home
>>>>on
>>>>Saturday.
>>>
>>> Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
>>> machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The
>>> machines
>>> can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>>
>> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
>> two year old is standing behind it.
>>
>> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>
> Anecdotal only, I know, but the people of aus.bicycle heard last week
> about my latest adventures.
>
> Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
> other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
> and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
> fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).
>
> This says *something* about either 4WDs, or their drivers.

I know a guy in a 120y wagon who deliberately rammed an Econovan because the
guy threw an apple on his bonnet, that says *something* about all station
wagons or their drivers.

> 'They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable
> about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving
> skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centred and self-absorbed,
> with little interest in their neighbours or communities.'

They are frequently aggressive nutcases.

I don't have kids, so got no problems with parenthood.








> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...174396370.html
>
> http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulle...256E24001A1266
>
> 'Fred J Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says,
> "Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I wonder how people view
> me', and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to
> get that."'
> http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/01/1080544625539.html
>
> "According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded
> that SUVs tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain,
> self-centred and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their
> marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."

Sports utility drivers are hoons.

> I.e, exactly the people you *don't* want driving 4WDs, think that
> they should be driving them. And it turns out it is no safer for them
> to drive 4WDs, than a normal car, and is is *hugely* unsafe for the
> rest of us, for them to be driving said.

Yeah much safer they drive 300kw Falcodores.

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Kev wrote:

>>Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
>>other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
>>and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
>>fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).

> what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
> with cars?

> in thye 20 years of driving trucks past bicycles on both city streets
> and highways I have never hit one(although the dickhead who granbbed the
> back of one truck for a free tow up hill was almost flung into a light
> pole when I had to take evasive action to avoid a car that pulled out of
> a driveway in front of me)

Yup, don't like the ones that grab hold of the back of the pickup
for a free ride.

Coming into work today there was one down with an ambo present,
looked fairly fecked, however push bike still looked plausible.

Even if you choose a motorbike, heard the risk factor of death is
20x. So, I'll keep my dirt bike for use on the farm.

[Ext User(TimC)]

On 2005-10-24, Kev (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>
>
>> Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
>> other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
>> and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
>> fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).
>
> what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
> with cars?

Reaction times greater than 200msec. Damn it, I'm only human.

In the two road rage cases, it was me yelling out "hey!" to cars that
tried to merge into the lane that I had already occupied. "hey!" of
course being the most to-the-point thing that one can quickly say --
as far more effective than merely ringing my bell. The 4WDer
obviously felt like his penis was threatened by this, so got out of
his car and started pushing me around.... 50m from a booze bus with
flashing lights. Idiot. The other was a bunch of teenagers in a
stolen car taking it for a joy ride, so they got their thrills out of
being dangerous fools on the road. Hope they've met a tree now.

In one other case, a 4WDer was pulling out of a carpark, and was too
busy concentrating on doing an illegal U-turn to bother looking in my
direction. When she hit me, I managed to stay upright and avoided the
tram tracks and traffic in the opposite direction, and nearly fell
over when I came to clip out, and found I could barely move my leg.
She said "oh sorry, I usually am a very good driver -- I look out for
cyclists, but just forgot to look this time!". Oh well, at least it
wasn't the SMIDSY -- "Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You" -- I have to admit
I've never heard someone say "I didn't bother looking for you". And
she even took me to the doctor then the police station.

And the case 2 weeks ago was an idiot in a 4WD who didn't indicate,
barely slowed down, or look when he pulled into a parking spot. I was
possible not riding as defensively as I could (I should have taken the
middle of the right hand lane in order not to allow vehicles to pass
me when there wasn't enough room) -- although the traffic was
travelling rather slow at the time, and I thought it was safe. He
broke at least 2, possibly three laws (I'm talking to a lawyer
tomorrow), and I broke 0 laws. Unfortunately, he has left me a 2 day
visit to a hospital, $500 out of pocket, and with a much reduced
capacity to eat for the past almost 2 weeks (lay ruin to my plan of
doing the 210km around-the-bay, because I couldn't fuel myself). and I
didn't even get a single scratch on his fricking precious Urban Asault
Vehicle.


There is no place for 4WDs in city roads. Every single one of mine
was a clean, never used in the bush vehicle. 2 of them were sole
occupant, and the other had two occupants. The one that got me last
time had a taller bonnet than my handlebars, which means he sure as
hell isn't going to see a lot of obstacles, and any human he does hit
will be hit in the torso, and will not have a chance of going safely
over the bonnet. Combine that with the fact that the vehicles are not
constructed to the same safety standards as required by law of normal
passenger vehicles, and that they are actively aggressive to non 4WD
users, and you have a vehicle that is extremely harmful to society.
But since it is so loved amongst Toorak style voters, of whom our
Johnny Howard love, I doubt they will be taxed comparably to normal
vehicles anytime soon.

--
TimC
All Tims are illusions, except for Lunch Tim, who is doubly so.
--screwtape on RHOD

[Ext User(Tom N)]

Noddy wrote:

> "fasgnadh" wrote
>> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
>> two year old is standing behind it.
>>
>> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>
> ****ing bullshit :)
>
> What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)

http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/moto...rch/reversing-
visibility/index.shtml

"Contrary to popular belief, NRMA Insurance research reveals that 4WD
vehicles are not the worst when it comes to reversing visibility. In fact,
many perform better than popular sedans. ...no car type is inherently
better"

According to the test, the following (out of the cars tested) have "Minimum
Distance to view test object (metres)" of 15m or more:

Peugeot 407 (Sedan) - with OEM sensors
Certain models of Holden Commodore
Toyota Prado
Land Rover Discovery
Honda Odyssey (5 Door Wagon)
Mercedes CLK500 (2 Door Convertible)
Holden Monaro CV8 (Coupe) - with OEM sensors
Holden Crewman (4 Door Ute)

> "fasgnadh" wrote
>> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
>> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.

Easily fixed with a reversing camera.

Unfortunately the fact that 4wds will hit ordinary cars at head height for
the occupants is not so easily fixed.

In the Used Car Safety Ratings at
http://www.mynrma.com.au/used_safety_ratings_4wd.asp
all the large 4WDs scored "Significantly more harm than average" in the
"How seriously is your vehicle likely to harm another road user?" rating
(which is vastly worse than any other vehicle category).

There are only 2 passive safety ways to avoid this problem of being hit by
a large 4wd.
1. Buy a large 4wd yourself (the nuclear arms race solution).
2. Get a car with side, curtain and front airbags.

I think the 5% duty on 4wds should be increased to 10% like other cars and
that 5% duty should apply to cars with 5 star ANCAP or EuroNCAP crash
rating that also have side, curtain and front airbags, plus maybe some
criteria based on pedestrian crash friendliness.

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

[Ext User(Resound)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:435cd21b$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
>
>> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>
> ****ing bullshit :)
>
> What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
Oh look, we've roused them :D

We're talking about toddler height objects. Try driving away from a white
post in your lard arse Landcruiser until you can see the whole reflector at
the top. Then stop and see how far from it you are.Everything between it and
the back of your vehicle is where you can't see a child. And I think the
word you're desperately groping for is "reactionary". Why yes, I actually DO
react to things. You know...by thinking about them for example.

Who wants to take bets on an incoherent response or none at all?

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-5793-27625-200510242336-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On 2005-10-24, Kev (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>> Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
>>> other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
>>> and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
>>> fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).
>>
>> what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
>> with cars?
>
> Reaction times greater than 200msec. Damn it, I'm only human.
>
> In the two road rage cases, it was me yelling out "hey!" to cars that
> tried to merge into the lane that I had already occupied. "hey!" of
> course being the most to-the-point thing that one can quickly say --
> as far more effective than merely ringing my bell. The 4WDer
> obviously felt like his penis was threatened by this, so got out of
> his car and started pushing me around.... 50m from a booze bus with
> flashing lights. Idiot. The other was a bunch of teenagers in a
> stolen car taking it for a joy ride, so they got their thrills out of
> being dangerous fools on the road. Hope they've met a tree now.

Then the idiot woman the other day obviously though I threatened her tits.

> In one other case, a 4WDer was pulling out of a carpark, and was too
> busy concentrating on doing an illegal U-turn to bother looking in my
> direction. When she hit me, I managed to stay upright and avoided the
> tram tracks and traffic in the opposite direction, and nearly fell
> over when I came to clip out, and found I could barely move my leg.
> She said "oh sorry, I usually am a very good driver -- I look out for
> cyclists, but just forgot to look this time!". Oh well, at least it
> wasn't the SMIDSY -- "Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You" -- I have to admit
> I've never heard someone say "I didn't bother looking for you". And
> she even took me to the doctor then the police station.

You'd prefer FYWYCF (f&ck you, where'd you come from?)

> And the case 2 weeks ago was an idiot in a 4WD who didn't indicate,
> barely slowed down, or look when he pulled into a parking spot. I was
> possible not riding as defensively as I could (I should have taken the
> middle of the right hand lane in order not to allow vehicles to pass
> me when there wasn't enough room) -- although the traffic was
> travelling rather slow at the time, and I thought it was safe. He
> broke at least 2, possibly three laws (I'm talking to a lawyer
> tomorrow), and I broke 0 laws. Unfortunately, he has left me a 2 day
> visit to a hospital, $500 out of pocket, and with a much reduced
> capacity to eat for the past almost 2 weeks (lay ruin to my plan of
> doing the 210km around-the-bay, because I couldn't fuel myself). and I
> didn't even get a single scratch on his fricking precious Urban Asault
> Vehicle.
>
>
> There is no place for 4WDs in city roads.

Obviously no place for accident prone cyclists either.

My only near misses riding in Sydney were with cars, taxi's usually, never
hit me though.

> Every single one of mine
> was a clean, never used in the bush vehicle. 2 of them were sole
> occupant, and the other had two occupants. The one that got me last
> time had a taller bonnet than my handlebars, which means he sure as
> hell isn't going to see a lot of obstacles, and any human he does hit
> will be hit in the torso, and will not have a chance of going safely
> over the bonnet. Combine that with the fact that the vehicles are not
> constructed to the same safety standards as required by law of normal
> passenger vehicles, and that they are actively aggressive to non 4WD
> users, and you have a vehicle that is extremely harmful to society.
> But since it is so loved amongst Toorak style voters, of whom our
> Johnny Howard love, I doubt they will be taxed comparably to normal
> vehicles anytime soon.

You never consider us non Toorak, real offroaders exist do you, if it's
under 2 year old it doesn't exist to you Toorak cyclists.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Tom N" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96FAF700A358ndt601946x@61.9.191.5...
> Noddy wrote:
>
>> "fasgnadh" wrote
>>> A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
>>> two year old is standing behind it.
>>>
>>> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>>
>> ****ing bullshit :)
>>
>> What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)
>
> http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/moto...rch/reversing-
> visibility/index.shtml
>
> "Contrary to popular belief, NRMA Insurance research reveals that 4WD
> vehicles are not the worst when it comes to reversing visibility. In fact,
> many perform better than popular sedans. ...no car type is inherently
> better"
>
> According to the test, the following (out of the cars tested) have
> "Minimum
> Distance to view test object (metres)" of 15m or more:
>
> Peugeot 407 (Sedan) - with OEM sensors
> Certain models of Holden Commodore
> Toyota Prado
> Land Rover Discovery
> Honda Odyssey (5 Door Wagon)
> Mercedes CLK500 (2 Door Convertible)
> Holden Monaro CV8 (Coupe) - with OEM sensors
> Holden Crewman (4 Door Ute)
>
>> "fasgnadh" wrote
>>> 4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
>>> sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
>
> Easily fixed with a reversing camera.
>
> Unfortunately the fact that 4wds will hit ordinary cars at head height for
> the occupants is not so easily fixed.
>
> In the Used Car Safety Ratings at
> http://www.mynrma.com.au/used_safety_ratings_4wd.asp
> all the large 4WDs scored "Significantly more harm than average" in the
> "How seriously is your vehicle likely to harm another road user?" rating
> (which is vastly worse than any other vehicle category).
>
> There are only 2 passive safety ways to avoid this problem of being hit by
> a large 4wd.
> 1. Buy a large 4wd yourself (the nuclear arms race solution).
> 2. Get a car with side, curtain and front airbags.
>
> I think the 5% duty on 4wds should be increased to 10% like other cars and
> that 5% duty should apply to cars with 5 star ANCAP or EuroNCAP crash
> rating that also have side, curtain and front airbags, plus maybe some
> criteria based on pedestrian crash friendliness.

I'm yet to get this mythical tax break on any second hand 4wd I've owned,
stamp duty is same as cars up here.

> 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

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

"Resound" <sacredchao@.yourhat.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:435d02dc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435cd21b$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>> For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>>
>> ****ing bullshit :)
>>
>> What "4wd" would that be you ractionary ****? :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Noddy.
>>
> Oh look, we've roused them :D
>
> We're talking about toddler height objects. Try driving away from a white
> post in your lard arse Landcruiser until you can see the whole reflector
> at
> the top. Then stop and see how far from it you are.Everything between it
> and
> the back of your vehicle is where you can't see a child. And I think the
> word you're desperately groping for is "reactionary". Why yes, I actually
> DO
> react to things. You know...by thinking about them for example.
>
> Who wants to take bets on an incoherent response or none at all?

I have no problems with visibility at all out the back of my Patrol ute,
maybe you're too short, hwen we all have camera's cars will be the deadly
killers then.

[Ext User(Donga)]

I don't think Phil Kearns needs to prove anything.
What is Jack Haley's explanation for women buying big 4WDs?
Sounds a bit glib to me.

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:435CB93B.2050804@yahoo.com.au...
>
>>Brash wrote:
>>
>>>"Brash" <trooper1962@hotmail.SPAM> wrote in message
>>>news:435b5755$0$10998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The car accident that left the daughter of former Wallaby skipper Phil
>>>>Kearns with life-threatening injuries has reignited demands for upgraded
>>>>safety on four-wheel drives.
>>>
>>>
>>>How about upgraded situational awareness for ALL drivers?
>>
>>How about tyargetting the biggest killers first.
>>
>>How about dealing with faulty owners of dangerous
>>machinery that is involved
>>in a disproportionate number of child fatalities...
>>
>>"I bought a 4WD for my families safety" - Pigs Arse
>>
>>
>>>>Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
>>>>stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
>>>>accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
>>>>Saturday.
>>>
>>>
>>>Very sad. I hope the little tike gets well soon. But raging against a
>>>machine, be it a 4WD or a centrfire rifle, serves no purpose. The
>>>machines
>>>can't hear you, and aren't to blam anyway.
>>>
>>
>>A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
>>two year old is standing behind it.
>>
>>For a 4WD its over 15 metres.
>>
>>4WDs are responsible for 50% of driveway killings of toddlers,
>>sedans, despite being much more common, only 20%.
>>
>>I would say, you do the maths, but I don't think you can.
>
>
> Figures I heard cars run over 90% of pedestrians, they should be banned.

If 90% of pedestrians were run over there would be a ban.

But cars would have to routinely mount the footpaths
to get 90% of pedestrians.

You didn't 'hear' such figures, you made them up.

Which is incredible rat bastard behaviour when kiddes are
being killed.

As I said, even though you took your socks off, you still
can't do the math.





>
>>
>>>>"People buy them (4WDs) thinking they're safe, but they simply are not,"
>>>>Mr Scruby said.
>>>
>>http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...5936,15755676%
>>255E1702,00.html
>>
>>4WD owners 'compensating'
>>By David Crawshaw
>>28jun05
>>
>>FOUR-wheel drive owners will often tell you they chose their vehicles for
>>safety reasons.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>"There's a Freudian factor; certain people have to buy these large cars
>>because they're missing elsewhere," Mr Scruby said today.
>>
>>"The majority of drivers see (4WD owners) as aggressive and arrogant –
>>it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
>>sit above everyone else."
>>
>>Mr Scruby today called for the removal of tariff reductions for 4WDs as a
>>study showed what many already suspected – that 4WDs are the most
>>dangerous cars on the road.
>>
>>The Monash University study found 4WDs were far more likely than
>>conventional vehicles to kill or maim other road users.
>>
>>Mr Scruby, who drives a Subaru Outback, said it was hard to tell to what
>>degree the people driving 4WDs were responsible for the high injury
>>rates, and how much was due to the physical nature of 4WDs.
>>
>>It was not really possible to improve safety for the occupants of one
>>vehicle in a crash without compromising safety for the occupants of the
>>other, he said.
>>
>>Mr Scruby called on the Federal Government to scrap tariff reductions on
>>4WD vehicles, and to apply lower tariffs to safer vehicles.
>>
>>People who genuinely needed 4WDs, such as those in remote areas, could be
>>exempted from increased tariffs, he said.
>>
>>But elsewhere 4WDs should be "taxed off the road".
>>
>>"I don't think people in Mosman and Toorak should be getting these
>>vehicles at 5-per-cent tax when a Corolla is taxed at 10 per cent," Mr
>>Scruby said.
>>
>>He also took aim at young drivers in regional areas who drove souped-up
>>utes often adorned with bullbars, aerials and stickers.
>>
>>"In the bush every young driver wants to drive a Holden ute with a
>>bullbar," he said.
>>
>>"It's a testosterone thing, it's all about 'mine is bigger than yours'."
>>
>>NRMA vehicle policy expert Jack Haley said the high rate of injuries
>>caused by 4WDs was due to the type of vehicle involved, not the behaviour
>>of 4WD drivers.
>>
>>The same tariffs should be applied to all cars, Mr Haley said.
>>
>
>
>