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

"Noddy" wrote in message
...

"Resound" wrote in message
...

So, assuming that you've got a level driveway, how much of it CAN you see
from the driver's seat. I don't mean down one side from the wing mirrors
either, I mean directly behind the vehicle?

With my car parked right at the Garage door, I can see the ground at the
corner of the house clearly, which would be 5 metres maximum. With the
convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the rear bumper.
Interestingly, I also have an ED Fairmont Ghia, and in that car the
minimum rear viewing distance would be an additional 3 metres easily.

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

--
Regards,
Noddy.



With your car parked right at the garage door the corner of the house is
directly behind you?

"Bob" wrote in message
u...

Maybe positive approaches to solving these problems should be looked at
first. Like your convex view panel. I notice a lot of courier vans have an
external mirror at the back facing their rear bumper. Would it be too hard
to require these to be retrofitted to make life safer?

They're certainly a good idea, and I had one on my work van when doing on
site stuff.

Nothing worse than going out to do an on site repair and sticking your
towbar tongue right through the customer's grille

--
Regards,
Noddy.

The title of this thread is confusing. Is it that we should blame the
faulty drivers, or that 4wd's are the most dangerous vehicles?

Tonight on my way home I witnessed a 3 vehicle collision (no such thing
as an accident) due to a bloke in an Excel running a red light, and not
even braking before hitting the Volvo 2 cars in front of me as we
turned right with a green arrow. That could've been me, since I usually
lane split to the front on my motorbike, but there wasn't enough room to
filter between the cars in the queue. This crash was caused by a faulty
driver, there wasn't a 4WD or SUV in sight. I know that's going to be
hard for some of you to believe, but it's true.

Some of you seem to forget that these vehicles don't operate
themselves, they actually need a human at the controls. You're
promoting the current lack of personal responsibility for anything that
happens in this society by blaming the design of the vehicles, rather
than the idiot humans who crash them or run over people with them.

I'm of the opinion that 'blind spots' are just a **** weak excuse for
****house drivers. You can show me all the research you like, and put
as many cameras facing backwards in as many different vehicles as you
like, it doesn't change the fact that the person in control is the
person responsible for where that vehicle goes. If you can't see behind
you, move your fecking head so that you can. Get some blind spot mirrors
(I have 2, 1 on either side, and I have used them since I first started
driving). Open the door, even get out of the car and check if you have
to. The only things I've ever reversed into have been in the bush when
trying to negotiate some dodgy 4wd track, a situation where I really
don't care if I've just reversed into a tree (or even a white post).

I reverse my Patrol out of my driveway all the time without hitting
anything. There's a bus stop right next door, and there are often young
children running around, kicking a ball or whatever, waiting for the
bus. I haven't hit a single one of them. 'How does he do it?' I hear
you wondering. I use my fecking eyes, and I move my body so I can see.

Those of you who think a certain vehicle type should be banned from the
roads have your heads firmly planted up your arses. In the same week
that you're suggesting banning 4WD's from the road, you're shaking your
heads at channel 7 asking whether bicycles should be banned during peak
hour. You can't have it both ways. We are all allowed to choose in this
society. Once you limit the choices of one group of people (such as 4wd
owners), it's only a matter of time until another groups (eg.
bicyclists) choices are limited.

Don't even think about pushing the environmental angle - those lovely
imported carbon/titanium/bling bicycles had to get transported to
Australia somehow, and guess what, it was by a fuel guzzling boat or
plane. I wonder how much pollution is created in the manufacture (and
transport) of all these bling bits? Less than a motor vehicle perhaps,
and no ongoing pollution perhaps, but if that's your rebuttal you've
completely missed the point. Unless you are totally self sufficient,
you all rely on oil (and coal) burning machines every day, no matter
how many k's you do on a bicycle.


--
Peka

"Peka" == Peka writes:

Peka The title of this thread is confusing. Is it that we should
Peka blame the faulty drivers, or that 4wd's are the most dangerous
Peka vehicles?

I take the fist bit over the second.

Peka Some of you seem to forget that these vehicles don't operate
Peka themselves, they actually need a human at the controls. You're
Peka promoting the current lack of personal responsibility for
Peka anything that happens in this society by blaming the design of
Peka the vehicles, rather than the idiot humans who crash them or
Peka run over people with them.

The problem lies in education. People do not learn to drive in a 4WD.
When I was in the army although a car licence covered driving a
Landrover 110 we were not allowed to drive them until we'd undergone
familiarisation training, and a bloody good thing too. It requires a
different mind and skill set to drive one of those things.

Do I agree with cyclists being able to take to the road with no
knowledge of the road rules or even a basic understanding of how to
handle a bike? No, not really. That said cyclists don't kill and maim
people other than themselves so I guess it balances out. Unfortunately
the same can't be said about 4WDs, high powered sports cars, trucks
etc.

Peka Don't even think about pushing the environmental angle - those
Peka lovely imported carbon/titanium/bling bicycles had to get
Peka transported to Australia somehow, and guess what, it was by a
Peka fuel guzzling boat or plane. I wonder how much pollution is
Peka created in the manufacture (and transport) of all these bling
Peka bits? Less than a motor vehicle perhaps, and no ongoing
Peka pollution perhaps, but if that's your rebuttal you've
Peka completely missed the point. Unless you are totally self
Peka sufficient, you all rely on oil (and coal) burning machines
Peka every day, no matter how many k's you do on a bicycle.

Why introduce this bit? This isn't a peak oil thread, it's a thread
about whether 4WD's are dangerous or whether the people driving them are
dangerous. Don't confuse the issue by bringing in externalities.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan Wrote:

Peka Don't even think about pushing the environmental angle - those
Peka lovely imported carbon/titanium/bling bicycles had to get
Peka transported to Australia somehow, and guess what, it was by a
Peka fuel guzzling boat or plane. I wonder how much pollution is
Peka created in the manufacture (and transport) of all these bling
Peka bits? Less than a motor vehicle perhaps, and no ongoing
Peka pollution perhaps, but if that's your rebuttal you've
Peka completely missed the point. Unless you are totally self
Peka sufficient, you all rely on oil (and coal) burning machines
Peka every day, no matter how many k's you do on a bicycle.

Why introduce this bit? Because others in this thread have brought up the fact that 4WD's use
lots of fuel and that's another reason why they don't like them.


--
Peka

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:58:47 +1000, Peka Wrote :

The title of this thread is confusing. Is it that we should blame the
faulty drivers, or that 4wd's are the most dangerous vehicles?

Ahhhhh Someone else who's totally fed up with the "I won't take responsibility for my own actions" brigade. Good, there should be more of it...:-)

I dunno what the thread's about - I don't see anything cross posted to aus.cars or aus.politics...:-)

--

Humbug

TimC wrote:
On 2005-10-25, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Brash wrote:

"TimC" wrote in message
...

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

And nothing about you? Of course not.


What that Tims met more Dickheads than many? Or that its a waste of
time his buying a tatts ticket? Doesnt say anything about him other
than that


The anecdotal "stat" I have heard is that someone cycling 10,000km on
the road per year can expect to be hit about once a year (fortunately,
few of those hits result in hospitalisation, and most of them probably
go unreported to police and hence can't be counted in a rigorous
survey of accidents).

I know there are people that do better than this. I don't recall the
last time EuanB was hit. EuanB is also a very good and I imagine,
conservative cyclist (and SusieB should punch him if he weren't .
Does he perhaps also not spend his entire 35km-each-way commute on
busy roads? I'm not sure.

Being hit 3 times a year (the 4th wasn't really a hit - it was more a
grab of his car in order not to lose balance and fall, followed by him
getting out of the car and assaulting me), is only 2 standard
deviations off the mean. Small number statistics and all that, mean
that it is not unexpected at all -- a 5% chance of happening by
chance -- ie, one in 20 cyclists riding 10,000km per year can expect
to be hit 3 times in one year (and one in a hundred 4 times a year).

Sigh, I sound like an astronomer with no data.

Well I have been hit once in the last 50 000 km. THanks for taking the
hits for me Tim

Dave

Bob wrote:
"Noddy" wrote in message
...

With the convex view panel I can see the ground to within 300mm of the
rear bumper.


Maybe positive approaches to solving these problems should be looked at
first. Like your convex view panel. I notice a lot of courier vans have an
external mirror at the back facing their rear bumper. Would it be too hard
to require these to be retrofitted to make life safer?


Really. In the healy I can see the back corners of the car

some dole bludging wannabe calling itself faggy arse ****ed and moaned,
farted, **** its pants and blurted out:
**** all of any use to Australian road users.

Try again, faggoty arse, after you stop your juvenile dummy spit and
try using coherent English.

There's a shrink term for you, you little mildewed weasel, something
like "penis envy." You don't have what others have so you dream up all
the excuses under the sun why they should not have what they do have.
It won't work, ****face. Your ****y little left wing wanking will not
change anything. Those of us who own and use four wheel drives will
continue to do s, for work and/or for recreation, in spite of the
impotent ravings of fools like you and that ****wit scruby. Just in
case you're wondering, little skate board dole bludger, I own two four
wheel drives, and have five more on lease, all five are somewhere up in
the Gulf of Carpentaria carrying full loads of tourists. And here's the
kicker, little boy, all five are earning me a ****load of cash.

Brash wrote:
"Rainbow Warrior" wrote in message
...
"fasgnadh" wrote in message
...
Brash wrote:
"Brash" wrote in message
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

That's what I said. Dickhead.

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 blame 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.

I think Stalinists like Scruby and Faghands should be banned.

Nahh.. don't ban the bludgers, let tehm be useful and productive
members of society, and use their bodies as crash test dummies for four
wheel drive bullbars.