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

"TimC" wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-135-17383-

Minivan.

Minivans make a lot of 4wd's feel sporty

--
Regards,
Noddy.

"Resound" wrote in message
...

Well I didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but basic geometry says
that the higher the whole driver/mirror/back window arrangement is, the
wider the area is in which you can't see anything. The bottom sills of the
windows on vehicles commonly referred to as "4WD" vehicles (and what IS
your preferred term then?) tend to be substantially higher than those on
conventional cars. Thinking about the general shape of the Cherokee, I can
see that it would have better visibility than most other 4WDs as it has a
large and low glass area. I'd still say try the white post trick and see
how far you get, especially in your normal backing out of the driveway
mode, not hoiked up out of your seat with your head against the roof
lining.

snip

I know you didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but it was an absurd
suggestion.

15 meters is not very far short of the length of your average semi trailer,
and I find it rather difficult to believe that you'd need to be that far
away from a toddler before you could see it, even in something like a
Landcruiser. My vehicle has excellent rear visibility as it is, and I've
complimented this by fitting one of those convex view panels. If you're not
familiar with them, this particular type is a piece of plastic film around
the size of an A4 piece of paper, and it sticks to the rear window by
suction. With it fitted, I'm *almost* able to see the tip of the towbar.

I think this whole argument is academic anyway, as I believe the vehicle
type is irrelevant in such accidents. Responsibility rests with the driver,
and blaming the vehicle because "I couldn't see" is a pretty **** poor
excuse for laziness.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

"Noddy" wrote in message
...

"Resound" wrote in message
...

Well I didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but basic geometry says
that the higher the whole driver/mirror/back window arrangement is, the
wider the area is in which you can't see anything. The bottom sills of
the windows on vehicles commonly referred to as "4WD" vehicles (and what
IS your preferred term then?) tend to be substantially higher than those
on conventional cars. Thinking about the general shape of the Cherokee, I
can see that it would have better visibility than most other 4WDs as it
has a large and low glass area. I'd still say try the white post trick
and see how far you get, especially in your normal backing out of the
driveway mode, not hoiked up out of your seat with your head against the
roof lining.

snip

I know you didn't come up with the 15 metre figure, but it was an absurd
suggestion.

15 meters is not very far short of the length of your average semi
trailer, and I find it rather difficult to believe that you'd need to be
that far away from a toddler before you could see it, even in something
like a Landcruiser. My vehicle has excellent rear visibility as it is, and
I've complimented this by fitting one of those convex view panels. If
you're not familiar with them, this particular type is a piece of plastic
film around the size of an A4 piece of paper, and it sticks to the rear
window by suction. With it fitted, I'm *almost* able to see the tip of the
towbar.

I think this whole argument is academic anyway, as I believe the vehicle
type is irrelevant in such accidents. Responsibility rests with the
driver, and blaming the vehicle because "I couldn't see" is a pretty ****
poor excuse for laziness.

--
Regards,
Noddy.




I still say try it, you might be unpleasantly surprised. It doesn't take
much for a child to scoot behind a vehicle on one side while you're watching
clearance on the other. Those fresnel lense arrangements don't offer
particularly fabulous visibility either...I've driven a couple of vans
fitted with them.

"Noddy" wrote in message
...

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...

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

What a load of crap

My driveway is 22 metres from the footpath to my garage door, and if the
ABC thinks that I couldn't sit in anything at one end and not see the
ground at the other they're playing with themselves

--
Regards,
Noddy.


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?

"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.

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.

No, I bought mine to go bush and tow a boat.

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.

Says a pencil-neck. **** sake, does this dill really belive this ****?

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

I think Scruby is one of those ****ants who is afraid of his own shadow.

"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."

Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.


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.

Only when driven by dickheads.

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,

Oh, so the turds a hypocrite, as well.

Meddling in other people's lives, but it's okay for him to own a 4WD.
****ing Stalinist.

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.

I don't live in a remote area, but I go to remote areas. How do we resolve
that, Scruby, you dickhead.


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.

Of course he would. Geez, those bloody stickers could have someone's eye
out.

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

He says that like it's a bad thing.

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

What, is this **** a mind reader?


--
"It's ballistics, not rocket-science."

Me.

"TimC" wrote in message
...
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.

And nothing about you? Of course not.


--
"It's ballistics, not rocket-science."

Me.

"Noddy" wrote in message
...

"TimC" 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 **** of a bike rider

Too right.


--
"It's ballistics, not rocket-science."

Me.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

Eunometic wrote:
TimC wrote:

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.


"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.


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.
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)
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.

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.




And now we have to buy a 4wd so we can have decent visibility on the
same road as you.

TimC wrote:
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.


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.


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!

But you know what I used to play with Tim... they aint even contenders

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?


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?

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.

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"?


He isnt????

TimC wrote:
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.

Yeah they missed that. Yet you know they did make a good case that you
cannot concentrate on two things at once.
One thing that struck me was that it was going to be a conservertive
value of degraded driving.. they did the phone and drunk tests last.
Any training effect should have improved those scores

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.

Better than the ones who run you over cornering