Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

Dave wrote:
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.

Does Aussie Disposals sell tanks??

Check it:
http://www.daystoamaze.co.uk/pages/product331.tpl

hippy
- off to mess with some Toorak Tractors..

hippy wrote:

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..

Surely every 4WD containing one person would only be replacing a car with
one person. Contrary to popular opinion a 4WD takes up no more road space
than a car. Except for 2.5 metre Smart4twos most cars vary in length by very
little more than a metre (including Land-Crushers). Allowing a two second
gap at 60 km/h would mean a 5 metre car takes up 38.3 metres of road, a
Corolla 37.5. Wow, how rude of the 5 metre car.
For comparison, a Corolla is 4175 long, a RAV4 is 4255 long and a
Landcruiser 100 is 4890 long. This will give you some idea of the amount of
'space' they take up. BTW, a Commodore sedan is 4866 long and a wagon 5033.

Cheers

Theo

Peter Signorini wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

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?

In another post I pointed out that the RAV4 is a whopping 80 mm longer than
a Corolla. OK it is 215mm higher and, not to ignore, 90mm wider. Comparing
Toyota website specs the Top of the Wazza RAV4 gets 9.7 l/100 km whilst the
very frugal, also top of the line, Corolla manages 8.1. The cheapest manual
Corolla is the same length but uses only 7.7l/100 km. The cheapest RAV4 uses
9.3 but, Oh my Gawd, is 315 mm shorter than the Corolla. Feel free to browse
away.

Theo

suzyj wrote:

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

My wife has no intention of ever taking her RAV4 off-road. She just likes
it.

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
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


Actually, on a per load carried basis, 4WD vehicles do use more fuel and
therefore, on the basis that fuel consumed is a reasonable indicator of
pollutants emitted, they do pollute more. More driveline losses (less
insignificant than you might think), big chunky wheels and tyres (more
rotating mass), heavier construction in general and a greater cross
sectional area coupled with a more upright shape and more "parasitic drag"
causing protrusions mean that they're simply not as efficient as a
conventional car with the same power and carrying capacity. Granted, I
personally find a RAV4 a lot less offensive than a 100 series Landcruiser,
which positively REEKS of gratuitous consumption and basically declares to
the world that the owner just couldn't give a toss about anyone else. If you
need a large station wagon for general family hauling duties fair enough,
but I'd argue that the 6 cyl version would be far more appropriate for
pretty much everything. Anyone who seriously considers a Commodore to be a
sports car is dreaming. The thing that the Commodore will do far, FAR better
than the big 4WD is turn and stop, thus not mashing other road users. Also,
even if the Commodore does hit another car, the normal bumper heights mean
far fewer injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle. Point to note:
accident and death stats for occupants of 4WD vehicles conform pretty much
to the norm. Accident and death stats on occupants of vehicles HIT by 4WD
vehicles most distinctly do NOT conform to the norm. Refer back to the 100
series Landcruiser owner not giving a toss about anyone else. I could go on,
but this is already waaaaay too long. I think I made some of the points I
wanted to.

hippy wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Yes. Do you think keeping a safe distance, one that enables you to
stop or evade a changed traffic condition, is the responsibility of
yourself, or that of the driver in front of you?

Do you think being able to see more than one car ahead is a benefit
or a hindrance???

It is a benefit. Does that somehow diminish your responsibility to drive
safely to the conditions?

Theo

"Stuart Lamble" wrote in message
...
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".

I have an OCR3. With a rack and panniers Works a treat, it does. Find a
nice 2nd hand 04 model (yeah you miss out on the carbon forks, but that's
what I have and I can't say I hate the alloy forks) and save, save SAVE!!!

"hippy" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
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.

Does Aussie Disposals sell tanks??

Check it:
http://www.daystoamaze.co.uk/pages/product331.tpl

hippy
- off to mess with some Toorak Tractors..

Saracen APCs come onto the market now and then. Vast torque from the big
chunkin' diesel and bullet proof tyres so you can laugh off the bogan
droppings.

Resound wrote:

Actually, on a per load carried basis, 4WD vehicles do use more fuel
and therefore, on the basis that fuel consumed is a reasonable
indicator of pollutants emitted, they do pollute more.

Agreed but we're talking a 10% fuel consumption difference between a RAV4
and a Corolla. Hardly significant, IMHO.

Granted, I personally find a RAV4 a lot less
offensive than a 100 series Landcruiser, which positively REEKS of
gratuitous consumption and basically declares to the world that the
owner just couldn't give a toss about anyone else.

And yet is still 150 mm shorter than a Commodore wagon.

If you need a
large station wagon for general family hauling duties fair enough,
but I'd argue that the 6 cyl version would be far more appropriate
for pretty much everything.

The Commodore we (the company) bougth for the D-I-L was the Adventra, so it
is all wheel drive, and the only one available in the colour she desired
(black) with leather upholstry (natch) came with the 5.7 V8. Only cost $50K,
you could buy several bicycles for that.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:[color=blue]
hippy wrote:
How do you feel about delivery vans, trucks and buses? Surely a bigger
problem than a little RAV4?

Theo

again, a necessary evil, unlike a RAV4 in urban Melbourne

--
ProfTournesol