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

EuanB wrote:

I disagree. You stop, put your car in to reverse indicating right.
Cars
behind you can see what you're doing. You can see them. When it's safe
to do so, you swing in and reverse in.

Cars travelling in a continous stream on a dual carriageway, usually at less
than half the recommended separation?

Reversing out of the driveway you have to expose a portion of your car
before you even get to see the road. How is that safer than reversing
when you're aware of your conditions?

No. There was enough space on the council land to expose the whole vehicle
before any part was on the roadway.

I think what you mean to say is that it's less convenient and more
time consuming. No argement there.

I think you need to try it at that location.

Theo

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

I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
smalltalk.

I agree. I never initiate a call from a moving vehicle, unless I'm the
passenger. But then there are other distracting things people do in cars
that are not illegal. Like changing the CD, eating, drinking, changing the
radio station, etc, etc.

I was an inexperienced driver, driving part of the way between Sydney
and somewhere in the middle of NSW, with mum (I was probably a P
plater at the time). I made the mistake of changing the tuner on a
corner, and looked up and was not 30m in front of a jeep travelling in
the opposite direction at 100km/h. Heh. I learnt my lesson very
quickly. Glad it was at a time when I was able to correct for it and
get out of trouble. Never did that again.

Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

Totally agree. It's probably less dangerous to just answer the phone. I just
let it ring in the past.

A lot of people seem very adverse to let a ringing phone keep ringing.

You know how people always complain of a phone ringing when they put
out the washing, and they run back inside, and answer the phone, and
the caller had hung up? If the phone is not within hand reach of me,
I don't bother answering it. Probably makes me a bitch to call

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

"TimC" wrote in message
...
On 2005-10-25, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Rainbow Warrior wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.

Was that using an Australian standard height person?

I have no idea. It was on whatever followed the ABC News, I was reading
the
manual for my new phone at the time. How high is an Australian standard
person and what is their leg/torso ratio? Presumably using the same
person.
Either way 17 metres is a long way, probably longer than most peoples'
driveways.

You'll all be pleased to know that the new phone comes with a hands-free
kit. :-)

I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
smalltalk.

Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

Oh no, phone ringing, must answer, hand reaching, can't stop, I know it's
just more work for me but I want it...............................
I just turn mine off for hours sometimes.

fasgnadh wrote:

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

A Comodore has a rear blind spot of nearly 20 metres,
regardless of a two year old standing behind it or not.

Ban the Commodore!


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

that's an outright lie.

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.

An anatomical defficiency is what that sounds like:
brainless is the term that springs to mind.

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

So: is it Freudian or anatomical? Make up your mind...

it's a certain type of person who has to have one of these vehicles and
sit above everyone else."

does that go for truckies as well?

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

that is total bull****.

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

Typical bumhead biggot who thinks he knows better
and that everyone should fit the same mold because
he says so.

and we have to listen to this...

fasgnadh wrote:
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.

fast food outlets? Smokers? Stop being a big-government tool, FagBags.


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

How do you know?


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.

More than a bicycle. Why don't those dangerous *******s ride to work?
Ban Charades immediately!


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%.

How many have bicyles killed?


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

You can't either apparently.

Don't overcompensate for your insecurities, fagBags.

"TimC" wrote in message
...
On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
adults in the back.

Minivan.

A SUV if you use US definition and should be banned.

2 10 airbags to protect the side of the head of everyone including the
2 children.
3 The abillity to fjord a flooded weir when the local road overflows
(yearly event)

I don't think I would add $10,000 onto the price of a vehicle for a
once yearly event.

Much better to sit on the bank thinking of the $10k you saved as you watch
the water reaching the door handles.

4 The abillity to take the family skiing around the Mt Hotham area when
visiting her husbands family without mucking around with snow chains
(both dangerous, costly and damaging to roads)
5 The visibillity. Easy to be seen and easy for kids to get a good
view as well as see what the up ahead traffic is doing.

I love point 5. Lets becomes part of the arms race!

Have you ever put thought into the scenario where everyone gets the
4WD for your reason given, and then you no longer have a good view of
the traffic?

I've seen the view and believe it or if traffics not moving it's usually
just a view of more cars not moving.

Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel. It even
beats most 2L cars for fuel efficiency and goes like a rocket. It's
supurb for shopping and also takes much of the discomfort out of speed
humps.

Goes like a rocket in the shopping centre car park, I take it?

So do falcodores.

Speed bumps aren't meant to be uncomfortable. If they are, then you
are going too fast. If, however, you can't feel them, then they
aren't serving their purpose to slow you down.

Falcodore drivers just go flat to the floor between them instead.

You aren't one of those 4WDers who think "ooh, that gutter looks to be
placed slightly inconvenient, I'll just drive over it"? "Oooh, my
parking skills aren't very good, and I can't complete this parallel
parking in 3 steps, so I'll just drive on and off the gutter a couple
of times until I get it right"?

Funny I've lost count of the number of times I've noticed "safer" "high
performance" "superior handling" vehicles not staying in their own lane,
when your pushing hard through a windy mountain road crossing double yellow
lines on every corner and there's a slinky suspension 76 Range Rover on your
tail that is staying on the right side of the road, doesn't it highlight
something?
Many of them can't keep between 2 lines in a parking space, yet I manage to
fit my oversized Patrol in the same spots just fine.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

It's probably BS. In anycase most of the 4WDs I see are full of women
and children.

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)

The one altercation we had with a cyclist was when we stopped at lights
and he rear ended us. He actually got 'bicycle rage' and blamed us and
started thumping the car. Bicylcists can become as morally arrogant as
anyone. I say that as a frequent cyclist.

Cycles in Sydney are BS as they are in any CBD (including Amsterdam).
You see them all over the place in small European cities and villages.
Not major metropols.

Yep they sing a different tune when they are knocking over pedestrians on
the footpath

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:

I disagree. You stop, put your car in to reverse indicating right.
Cars
behind you can see what you're doing. You can see them. When it's
safe
to do so, you swing in and reverse in.

Cars travelling in a continous stream on a dual carriageway, usually
at less
than half the recommended separation?

That's no excuse. Drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions.
If you're being tailgated your signalling (a foreign concept to
Australian drivers) needs to be done earlier than usual and braking
needs to be slower to let the people behind catch on.


Reversing out of the driveway you have to expose a portion of your
car
before you even get to see the road. How is that safer than
reversing
when you're aware of your conditions?

No. There was enough space on the council land to expose the whole
vehicle
before any part was on the roadway.

Enough visibility to see if there are any sidewalk pedallers,
pedestrians etc?


I think what you mean to say is that it's less convenient and more
time consuming. No argement there.

I think you need to try it at that location.

I've done it regularly in conditions such as those that you describe.
I'm not in the habit of commenting on stuff I've not done.


--
EuanB

Theo Bekkers wrote:
EuanB wrote:


I disagree. You stop, put your car in to reverse indicating right.
Cars
behind you can see what you're doing. You can see them. When it's safe
to do so, you swing in and reverse in.


Cars travelling in a continous stream on a dual carriageway, usually at less
than half the recommended separation?


Reversing out of the driveway you have to expose a portion of your car
before you even get to see the road. How is that safer than reversing
when you're aware of your conditions?


No. There was enough space on the council land to expose the whole vehicle
before any part was on the roadway.


I think what you mean to say is that it's less convenient and more
time consuming. No argement there.


I think you need to try it at that location.

Theo



Hey Theo

In a different thread I insulted you by comparing you to Bratton. I'd
just like to appologise for that remark. I must have been in a bad mood
at the time. (I still disagree about coal being dangerous!)

Sorry

Marty

Marty wrote:

In a different thread I insulted you by comparing you to Bratton. I'd
just like to appologise for that remark. I must have been in a bad
mood at the time. (I still disagree about coal being dangerous!)

Sorry

No worries. Been busy. I'll respond to that in a little while.

Theo