Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...

hippy wrote:

I don't like the large 4wd's due to their size. I can't see over them.

When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to
the big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.

How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
problem than a little RAV4?

You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of vehicle -
delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road to do a task that
demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's not much functional
utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by, say, a Toyota Corolla. And
what about the fuel consumption and visual obstruction comparisons here?

Cheers
Peter

Peter Signorini wrote:

You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of vehicle -
delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road to do a task
that
demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's not much functional
utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by, say, a Toyota Corolla.
And
what about the fuel consumption and visual obstruction comparisons here?

Curious how we collectively let our behaviour be determined by perceived
image and needs which the advertisers tell us we have.

If you look at the billboard ads or commercials for 4wds its the rugged
outdoor image and seldom required ability to climb 45deg slopes which are
promoted - which in reality are mostly never used. Its not because of their
load carrying capacity - wagons and vans do that better.

Just going way off thread and bringing this back to bicycles for the moment
I suspect the sales ratio discrepancy between road bikes and mtbs (1:10 I am
told by my lbs) is largely down to the same phenomenon - and bless 'em you
will notice the 4wd folk are using mtb's as props in selling the rugged
outdoor image! Most people riding pretty much on paved surfaces need
roadies - but that's not what sells is it?

A very smart accountant once put it to me that your choice of vehicle should
be as modest as your transportation needs and ego will let you will get away
with - because cars are such money wasting devices, its best to limit your
losses.

I just wonder if we shouldn't start equating drivers of Stupid Unnecessary
Vehicles with smokers .... and they stink ...

best, Andrew

On 2005-02-22, Andrew Price wrote:
Just going way off thread and bringing this back to bicycles for the moment
I suspect the sales ratio discrepancy between road bikes and mtbs (1:10 I am
told by my lbs) is largely down to the same phenomenon - and bless 'em you

I have a hybrid. I want a road bike for commuting. $1,000 and up for
something reasonable. As somebody with a new mortgage, I can't justify
that money, especially since I already have a perfectly serviceable
bike.

Maybe in a year or so. *sighs* Something like the OCR 3, but I
definitely need panniers. AFAICT, the OCR 3 doesn't have the lugs I'd
need to hook up the pannier frame.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Theo Bekkers wrote:
hippy wrote:
When driving behind one, it's harder to see around it at the traffic
ahead, which makes 'braking easy, early' harder. Sure, "4WD" can refer
to a 'family car-sized' Subaru wagon or similar but I'm refering to
the big "tanks" that are totally unnecessary around Melbourne.

How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
problem than a little RAV4?

This question was addressed better than I could manage by Stuart Lamble
in another post.
All I can do is echo what he said and note that there are many more
4wd's on the road (typically containing 1 occupant and no goods) than
vans, trucks and buses. With the current 4wd boom, this will only get
worse.
Imagine if every one of the 'solo' Land Cruiser drivers caught the bus
instead? The roads would be almost empty.. ahh.. cycling bliss..

hippy

Theo Bekkers wrote:
My son's C180 supercharged Mercedes gets 6 litres/100 kms in the country,
about the same as my motorcycle. The RAV4 about 8.5 litres/100 km on a
country trip.

Why would anybody want to go to Mildura or drive a Colt. I find Colts hard
to spot in traffic. I tend to mistake them for Camiras due to the amount of
smoke.

OOooh.. watch yourself pal! :P

My most common drive is in an '89 Magna to... Mildura!

hippy

TimC wrote in
:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 01:49 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Stuart Lamble wrote:
If I'm stuck behind something that has a 4WD form factor -- such as
a RAV4 -- then I can only react to what the RAV4 does. I am relying
upon the driver of the RAV4 having good reflexes and anticipating
what the traffic ahead is doing, because I am blind -- the RAV4 is
blocking my vision of what I like to see happening ahead.

So why are you not bitching and whining about semis and trying to get
them banned? Surely much worse than a RAV4 to see over or around.

Because trucks actually have a purpose in life.

So you can drive safely behind a truck because it has a "purpose in
life" but not a smaller 4WD? And by the way, you should never rely on
other drivers having good reflexes etc. I'm sure you don't do so as a
cyclist, so what changes when you get in a car?

I've seen crap 4WD drivers and I've seen crap truck drivers (although the
latter is rarer but potentially with more lethal consequences), but
rather than propose banning 4WDs why not propose further compulsory
driver training combined with proper enforcement of penalties for
poor/dangerous driving? The standard of driving in Australia in general
isn't great and most drivers out there would certainly benefit from some
sort of re-training. Yes it would cost a lot of money, but retraining
every 5 years or so would be a small addition to the annual cost of
running a vehicle.

Course, I would rather they were replaced by trains, but there is
little chance of that happening any time soon.

That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,
does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.

Graeme

On 2005-02-22, Graeme wrote:
That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,
does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.

Trains can carry more people. When they get off the freeway, they still
have their own dedicated path, and hence aren't subject to traffic
delays. The pollution problem is pushed elsewhere, and might be less,
depending on the technology used to generate the electricity (if it's
diesel trains, ignore this point).

That's off the top of my head. There might be others.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 05:15 GMT, Graeme (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
That would be good. Just to send the thread even more wildly off-topic,



does anyone know the advantages/disadvantages of trains over buses in
dedicated bus lanes? This was prompted by a discussion with a friend over
the weekend about the new train line down the middle of the freeway to
the south of Perth. They were going to have a dedicated bus lane at one
time (as they have nearer the CBD) but went with a train line instead.

I'd prefer trains, but only because I know which trains to catch, and
where the route goes

They are also more energy efficient, I think (rails present almost no
friction, and they have regenerative braking almost by their very
nature). Course, they are heavier, so maybe that loses in the end.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX.

Stuart Lamble wrote in
:

When they get off the freeway, they still
have their own dedicated path, and hence aren't subject to traffic
delays.

But if you built a dedicated bus lane rather than a train line you'd
still have that advantage, plus the flexibility to use normal roads. This
is the main point that my friend was making and despite my ideas of the
advantages of trains (pretty much the same as yours) it did make a lot
of sense. In Perth the main north/south line runs down the centre of the
freeway with buses feeding to and from the stations to the suburbs. It
was pointed out that with a dedicated bus lane you could do away with the
bus to train change and just have the bus continue down the lane.

In fact, it makes more sense now. With the current setup you have, say, 3
or 4 buses per suburb able to provide a service every 10 minutes
connecting to a 10 minute train service carrying, as you state, much more
people from more suburbs. Once you get in to the CBD, you can have more
local bus links. Using bus lanes, to provide the similar 10 minute
service to even one suburb would require many more buses and even the bus
lanes would end up as one long traffic jam.

Cheers!

Graeme

ProfTournesol wrote:
Kim Hawtin Wrote:

Dave wrote:

When you talk to these mums.. the main reason they have a 4wd is so
darling child will be safe.. from other mums in 4wds

praps all these mums should just get volvos.
then they will be safe and it'll be a whole lot easier to spot.
and it'll also make prados and pajeros easier to outlaw as pointless
poluting status symbols. or show ponys as my wife calls them =)

kim


they're Urban Assault Vehicles in our house:-)


All weopons have an answer.. usually involving escalation. The way to
out heavy a volvo is with a 4wd. The 4wd drivers are merely armoured
volvo drivers.

Dave