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

Noons wrote:
TimC wrote:

Getting thrown up into the air, where some of the energy of the impact
can be disippated without injury, and crashing to ground (and
hopefully not getting run over by a truck following the impacting
vehicle) can well be less harmful that absorpting all of the energy of
impact in the few milliseconds it takes for an impact to happen.


I'm quite sure those with head injuries from hitting the ground
will agree with you...

silly argument. You hit your head in a 6 foot fall it will do all the
damage of .. a 6 foot fall. (survivable enough if you avoid hitting your
head) You hit your head on someones grill at 60 kph clearly it will
do more.

You may be just as dead.. but in the second case it will be messier.

"Kim Hawtin" wrote in message
...
Rainbow Warrior wrote:
Kim wrote:
Spear and Magic Helmet wrote:
Resound wrote:
Go on, tell me I'm full of ****.

No. What you stated isnt ****. Why did you take my comments so personal
I wonder.
personnaly? ever been in a collision?

You dont seem the type to try and spin conclusions off cherry
picked results and then sweep the data under the mat -- as you've shown
by showing some actaul data in your response.

Pity you generalised about maintenance costs of a 4wd though and fuel
consumption.

costs a **** load more than my bike $500 total maintenance for 12
months for two bikes.


My point is that those that rant and rave about these so called 4wds
being unique killer machines cos you cant see out the back is flawed as
there are plenty of cars that are worse than plenty of 4wds.

stats are likely to be interpreted in *intersting ways*. 'nuf said.

have you been cycling and hit by a large 4WD and left for dead on the
side of the road? hmmmm .. ?

*all* of the collisisons i have had in the last twelve months, i have
been hit from behind or been hit while i was stationary at the lights
or been hit while riding in a bike lane.

of those 11 times, 10 were from large 4WDs. all my cycling is commuting
from 6am-11am or 5pm-8pm weekdays. about 80% of my journey is in a bike
lane or a dedicated bike path. i follow the same road rules. indicate,
stop at lights and stop signs, the lot. even on my fixie. especially on
the fixie.

Every time my 4WD has been hit it's been a car, so they must be defective
vehicles, with less braking capability.

interesting theory small (european) cars actually have a lot more
braking capacity than are required. how the hell a lot of cars make
it past the ADRs is mind boggling.

Having said that and to save you the trouble -- I can read and I can
see that a 4wd is THE worst of all. But again, that doesnt negate my
point.

vehicular defects and design issues aside, the driver is responsible for
their actions. they can not hide from that. blaming the vehlice is their
own fault. they baught it, they're driving it. grow a backbone!


Interesting that the landbruiser -- the one everyone loves to hate -- a
variant of it (100 series) beat ALL of the large cars tested. 80 series
didnt do to bad either.

Prados count for 7 of the road abusers that that have hit me.
then a couple of pajeros, a landcruiser and a falcon.
interesting breakdown don't you think?


So you've only been hit by cars in the last 6 years then, what happened
previously?

not been in a position to cycle before that, for about
10+ years, then i had a number of close calls,
but never any collsions, much more rural area
and a lot less traffic.
4WDs weren't fashoinable then.

'tis a shame really, as one day i'd like to do some serious offroading
myself
might have to find a Manx or summat.
maybe an XC or a good tourer praps. hmmmm...

Yeah, bring an XC or Manx buggy "serious" offroading with us sometime,
we'll
come back for you at the end of the day, bring a trailer to take it home
on.


i've seen 2WD kombis in places they couldn't get a landcruiser.
little thing called weight manx buggy weighs 600-800KG w/70HP.
you'd be stunned the difference that makes =P

Sorry I think you may have just had bad Landcruiser drivers, I'll put my
Patrol anywhere you can put a Kombi, even soft sand is no problem, bring
your Kombi muddracing, rock hopping or Hillclimbing some time, weight can
also be your friend.

the other thing is, i don't mind to get out and push from time to time.
i'm not a lazy fat ******* that needs oodles of horsepower to get my
lame arse around.

When we get out it's to winch not push.

Kim Hawtin wrote:

atec wrote:


Tamyka Bell wrote:


atec wrote:


Tamyka Bell wrote:
Lots of Brisbanites travel east west , there is no public transport in
that direction ,


I travel east-west by public transport. It's easy. Unless you meant way
out west... a few hours...



a mate of mine lived near Indooroopili and there were two bus runs per
day. one to the CBD leaving around 830 and one from the CBD ariving
arroung 4pm!

so try working 8am-6pm with that level of service! pah!



Try Browns Plains to Richlands at 6 am..not going to happen.



even central and inner burbs of Adelaide before 6am is completely void
of public transport =( want to get to work at 6am, "on yeer bike Jimmy!"

cheers,

Kim


Many of the larger western cities I have worked in had services only
suspended for a couple of hours in the small hours , NY to Coney Island
at 5 am is possible .
even Wellington to Petone at 5 am... Brisbane to anywhere is damned
near impossible , but then Ozzies like driving more than many

Birdman wrote:

Trikes and leadwings do
Motorcycle has reverse.

Bloke out this way used to use his old 1000 wing to launch his tinny off
the beach ramp

Kev

D Walford wrote:

Resound wrote:
"Noons" wrote in message
ups.com...

dave wrote:

I could be wrong.. was a long while ago but dont you square the kinetic
energy?

Double the size of the vehicle and you turn many near misses into hits
too.

I suppose all that "instant physics" also works with ANY
type of larger vehicle? Not just the target of the
PC brigade?



Of course. All regular passenger cars weighing 2600kg will have about the
same stopping distance as a large 4WD weighing 2600kg although they'll have
a bit of an advantage due to lower rotating mass which gets a bit of a
double whammy with rotational inertia as well as linear. Of course, you'll
be trying pretty hard to find a conventional car that weighs more than
2000kg, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of physics. And there ain't
nothin' "instant" about Newtonian physics. They've been fiddling with those
since the 18th century. Weren't you paying attention in high school?


You have failed to consider the fact that a heavy vehicle also has
bigger brakes and tyres, the stopping distance is not necessarily
increased because of the greater weight, in fact some 4WD's stop in a
shorter distance than some much smaller cars.
Weigh is only one of very many factors that affect stopping distance.
Reaction time is a significant factor in stopping distance, with the
increased visibility due to a higher seating position the driver of a
4WD will have reacted to a situation and braked before a car driver even
knows he needs to brake.

Daryl


If you've ever driven an 8 wheeler truck Daryl you'll know how savage
large vehicles can be on the body in a panic stop

Bloody Actros used to leave me with minor seatbelt bruises
ABS, EBS, Electronic air disc brakes on an 8 wheeler, pull up as quick
as any car
make sure the seat belts are in good nick though


Kev

Kev wrote:


If you've ever driven an 8 wheeler truck Daryl you'll know how savage
large vehicles can be on the body in a panic stop

Bloody Actros used to leave me with minor seatbelt bruises
ABS, EBS, Electronic air disc brakes on an 8 wheeler, pull up as quick
as any car
make sure the seat belts are in good nick though

Do you mean 18 wheeler, but you know I drive one of those?
When my eldest son was still a learner I let him drive the 5 tonne Isuzu
I used to drive, I warned him about the air brakes but he still almost
managed to bounce his head off the windscreen the first time he touched
them, those brakes came on very hard at slow speeds and took a lot of
getting used to.
I've only ever managed to activate the ABS on the DAF once and it didn't
stop all that well but that's what happens when one of the trailer
brakes hoses falls out:-(
BTW I'm getting a brand new DAF next week, the contract where I work has
expanded so the boss is employing another driver, he gets my old truck
(only 92,000klms) and I get the new one:-)



Daryl

"Brash" wrote in message
u...

I still ride my motorbike when I'm not driving my 4WD or one of work's
trucks. I ride a pushbike to and from work, without any problems. And I
don't think I'm morally superior because of my choice of conveyance.

Jesus...

You cover all demographics and have nothing to complain about. You obviously
slipped through the government process of turning everyone into whinging
wimps during the '80's

--
Regards,
Noddy.

"Resound" wrote in message
...

Actually they're not illegal (which is rather the point) but I agree with
you.

Some are.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Resound wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Resound wrote:
"Birdman" wrote in message
...
"It's a matter of visibility and the problem with
four-wheel-drives in general is they have much
less visibility."
- PROFESSOR DANNY CASS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, KIDSAFE:


"A study by the NRMA released earlier this year
measured the rear visibility blind spots for 222
vehicles and gave them a star rating.

... and the worst car was the holden commodore. Worse than ANY 4wd or
other 2wd. So ban them to eh?

Tempting, but no. Amend the ADR requirements to mandate a maximum
distance
at which a child size object cannot be seen directly behind the vehicle
from
the driver's seat, yes.

Here's your homework for tonight, dumb bum, define "child size object."
After doing that, consider how bloody stupid, completely ambiguous and
totally pointless your idea.


"child sized object" def. Object the size of a child.

Yeah ok, if you want to get picky, the size of kids most at risk, that is,
the smallest, Call it 70cm. tall.

Alright, so use that figure. Now, what happens when the 70 centimetre
child has fallen on the ground or is riding a skate board? See how
bloody stupid and pointless your little caper has now become.

Resound wrote:

Ah, so you weren't paying attention in high school. I went hunting for
braking distances, but the manufacturers of 4WDs seem remarkably reluctant
to publish them. All I could find was vaguely worded comparisons such as
"more than 10 metres longer". Still, bigger brakes mean very little in an
emergency stopping situation. If you can bring the tyres up to the point of
locking, that's all the braking you're going to get. Bigger brakes are great
for stopping hard repeatedly because they're effective heat sinks and heat
radiators. The real telling points are the type of tyres, brake bias and
amount of weight transfer. You're saying that a vehicle that's front heavy,
overweight, and driving on balloon like tyres designed to be a compromise
between offroad and onroad behaviour has a braking ADVANTAGE? I suppose the
high centre of gravity and long travel suspension means that they corner
harder than a road car too. Wishful thinking won't make it so, no matter how
hard you screw up your eyes and promise Santa you'll be good.


Once again, showing total prejudice and complete and
utter ignorance of real facts.

Most 4wds in the market nowadays (and CERTAINLY most of the
so-called "toorak tractors") have ABS brakes. Which makes them
a lot better in braking distance than most sedans without them.

As confirmed by the multitude of bumps I've had to get fixed on
the rear of my Rav4 and the rear of the wife's Prado simply
because the idiots driving "safe" sedans behind us cannot break
in as short a distance.

Yes, I AM fully aware that ABS does not reduce absolute
braking distance. That's not what it does.

You really don't have a clue of reality, do you?
I suggest you stay on the physics department "research"
and leave real life to people who actually have to live it...