Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

On 2005-02-22, Theo Bekkers wrote:
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 a semi on the road has a legitimate purpose: moving goods around
from point A to point B. This cannot be achieved with a smaller form
factor.

You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
try to do that.

Yes. You think it fair to blame the 4WD form factor driver for your lack of
sensible driving practice?

I blame the 4WD form factor for making parts of sensible driving
practice impossible. An adequate braking distance is part of it, and as
a general rule, I do this. Being able to see the road ahead clearly is
another part of it which many people do not appreciate. If they do, the
likelihood is that they buy a 4WD to give them that clear view, and in
the process, they rob *me* of *my* clear view.

So to be completely fair, half the problem is the shape and size of
the vehicle blocking my view; the other half is people not
understanding the physics of driving and assuming that they can stop
at the drop of a hat. It Ain't So, and I need to drive to cater for
people not understanding that It Ain't So. Having a hulking great big
four wheel drive in front of me precludes that.

Again, how do you feel about trucks?

See above. I have no quibble about people who purchase and use vehicles
in a sane manner; a truck is designed to move goods, and is used for
that purpose. I am yet to see a four wheel drive form factor being used
for a purpose that cannot be achieved using a sedan or station wagon,
neither of which gives me the same level of grief as a driver. I'm
willing to accept the use of a 4WD for towing heavy boats (for example),
but not for general commuting. Even towing can be achieved with a decent
sized Commodore, or even a smaller car depending on the load.

The other consideration: every instance that I have seen a truck on a
road, they have driven in a predictable manner, and have endeavoured to
follow good driving practices. The same cannot be said -- by a VERY long
shot -- about four wheel drives. *Some* do. At best, I'd say it's around
fifty percent ...

Nothing gives me the screaming heebie jeebies quite like seeing a 4WD
duck and weave through traffic. They're accidents waiting to happen when
they do that.

--
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 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.

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


You can argue that I should leave an adequate braking distance, and I
try to do that.

Yes. You think it fair to blame the 4WD form factor driver for your lack of
sensible driving practice?

Did you read the whole explanation?

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

Shabby wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit.

We could start on Conformodore drivers as well if you want Theo.

It was the singling out 4WD's as 'pointless poluting status symbols' that
got my goat. I don't see 4WDs as being any more poluting than the average
Falcodore or blocking anyone's forward vision any more than a bus or a
delivery vehicle.

So far the debate has been about bicycle safety, not environmental
vandalism. Hippy's link references this quote: "but - even during
light-footed urban saunters - you won't get better than 16.5-litres
per 100 clicks."

Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of
person who then drives it efficiently.

My daughter in law bought this specific vehicle last week, trading in her
Kia Sorento (big 4WD), because the Kia has considerably less luggage space.
She has to carry around two of my grandchildren, the older being 2 1/2, and
the twin stroller, etc, etc, that goes with two toddlers. The Kia simply
doesn't have the boot space, the Adventra does. And yes, she will probably
be driving it very mildly. Actually it's her 'company' car.

Theo

I say let's cross post this to aus.cars and get a real bikes vs cars
argument going on. Maybe even add aus.motorcycles but I'm not sure whose
side they will take.

DaveB "who cares"

On 2005-02-22, TimC wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 01:49 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
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.

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

As would I, but there are some aspects of distribution where trains are
clearly inadequate. "Last mile" deliveries for the most part. I can't
even begin to believe that they'd lay rails to every supermarket in
Melbourne, for example.

--
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 01:52 GMT, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
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?

Rav4's are big purely to suit the ego of their drivers, and to
increase /perceived/ safety of the occupants (everyone else be
damned).

Trucks, busses, and delivery vehicles are large because that is the
only way they can be made practical.

I would rather see more public transport on the roads that private
vehicles (especially 4WDs and holden commodores), and hence will not
complain about busses or trams on the road.

Trucks I would rather see replaced to an extent by freight trains
(won't work to deliver to the local Safeway, but will work between
cities and major suburbs), and delivery vans can't really be changed -
the things they are used for is shortish travelling around a zig
zagged pattern all over a city. Freight trains are no good for that.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Bugger you guys.
The babelfish is idempotent on the set above.
I'm afraid that isn't a very good pickup line either, Tim. - MaryG

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 at 02:07 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On 2005-02-22, TimC wrote:
Because trucks actually have a purpose in life.

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

As would I, but there are some aspects of distribution where trains are
clearly inadequate. "Last mile" deliveries for the most part. I can't
even begin to believe that they'd lay rails to every supermarket in
Melbourne, for example.

It's a lovely day dream though.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit. Could
some-one please explain to me why my wife's 2.0 litre RAV4 consuming
10 litres /100 km is antisocial,

500km costs 50 litres? Damn, my little colt would get up to Mildura on
less far than a tank of petrol. A tank being $25 or so, and hence
maybe 35L or so. And it was 20 years old, so not all that fuel
efficient.

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.

Theo

Theo wrote:

Again, how do you feel about trucks?

Pretty good. 4WDs and other unnecessarily large cars spend 90% o
their time transporting just one person. Trucks spend 90% of thei
time transporting quantities of goods that would be difficult to mov
otherwise.

Trucks at least have a real reason for existance, unlike the standar
4WD owner's "oh, we bought it because we might like to go out to th
country one day" excuse.

Regards,

Suz

--
suzyj

"Shabby" wrote in message
...


Me thinks if you're buying a 5.7L Conformadore, you're not the type of
person who then drives it efficiently.

Speaking as a Commodore owner, most that you see on the roads will be 3.8L
engines, with considerably better fuel consumption - probably not much worse
than your RAV 4 mobile road screen.

Cheers
Peter